ISU SSP11 GoSSP Report Full Light

Mission Phases
Alonsoperez, Maria Victoria Pandya, Jigar

Arslantas, Yunus Emre Qedar, Ran
Bai, Guangzhou Reid, Tyler
Ballenhalli Krishnamurthy, Niveditha Ressler, Gerhard Small
Bergmann, Michael Rocha, Mauricio Teixeira Satellite
de Crombrugghe, Guerric Romano, Patrick
DSouza, Brian Saether, Erik Programs
Ghadaki, Farnaz Soares Henriques, Rui Filipe Vision
Hasanbegovic, Amir Su, Jinxin
Haylock, Thomas Sundlisaeter, Tale
Jurado Gallardo, Maria de los Angeles Terakado, Daiki
Koide, Takahiro Timofeev, Evgenii
Kumar, Nelanuthala Sudheer Tsoukala, Sotiria
La Torre, Simone Unterberger, Manuela
FINAL REPORT
Labzovsky, Ilia Urbanowicz, Maciej
Li, Dong Vihmand, Mart
Lpez Telgie, Alejandro Ignacio Vrolijk, Ademir
Context
Luft, Michael Wolf, Nadja
Matveenko, Vera Zhai, Zhengan
Morris, Trevor
Rationale
Legal f i na l
Planning Framework
Go SSP
Guidebook
on
SSP11 Graz, Austria
Small Satellite Programs
re
Strategy p ort
Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs
Final Report
International Space University

Space Studies Program 2011
International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

The 2011 Space Studies Program of the International Space University was hosted by
the Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria.
-
When humans desire to explore the vastness of space the road may be unclear.
A small satellite program is not an unattainable goal if you have a map to guide you
along the way.
Simone La Torre & Manuela Unterberger

- Cover Artists -
-
While all care has been taken in the preparation of this report, it should not be relied on, and
ISU does not take any responsibility for the accuracy of its content.
-
The Executive Summary and the Final Report may be found on the ISU web site at
http://www.isunet.edu in the ISU Publications/Student Reports section. Paper copies of the
Executive Summary and the Final Report may also be requested, while supplies last, from:
International Space University

Strasbourg Central Campus
Attention: Publications/Library
Parc dInnovation
1 rue Jean-Dominique Cassini
67400 Illkirch-Graffenstaden
France
Tel. +33 (0)3 88 65 54 32

Fax. +33 (0)3 88 65 54 47
e-mail. publications@isu.isunet.edu
ii International Space University, SSP 2011

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous guidance, support and direction provided by
the following individuals during the course of this work:
Project Faculty:
TP Co-Chair Werner Balogh

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
TP Co-Chair Wiley Larson
Stevens Institute of Technology
TP Teaching Associate Joshua Nelson
University of North Dakota
External Experts and International Space University Faculty and Staff
Fernando Aguado-Agelet University of Vigo

Philomena Bonis International Space University
Andy Bradford Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd.
Angie Bukley International Space University
Carol Carnett International Space University
Pascale Ehrenfreund Space Policy Institute
Rick Fleeter Brown University
Joel Herrmann International Space University
Rei Kawashima University Space Engineering Consortium
Carol Larson International Space University
William Marshall National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Milind Pimprikar CANEUS
Jordi Puig-Suari California Polytechnic State University
Klaus Schilling University of Wrzburg
Tom Segert Raumfahrtinitiative Berlin-Brandenburg
Fabian Steinmetz Institute of Space Systems, University of Stuttgart
Kirk Woellert Space Policy Institute
Eddie van Breukelen Innovative Solutions in Space
Oliver Zeile Institute of Space Systems, University of Stuttgart
The team would also like to extend their sincere thanks to all of the faculty, teaching associates,
guest lecturers, and staff of the International Space University for sharing with us their
knowledge, insights, and experience.
International Space University, SSP 2011 iii

Guidebook on Small Satellite Projects List of Authors
AUTHORS
Alonsoperez, Maria Victoria Arslantas, Yunus Emre
URUGUAY TURKEY
Bai, Guangzhou Ballenahalli Krishnamurthy, Niveditha
CHINA INDIA
Bergmann, Michael de Crombrugghe, Guerric
AUSTRIA BELGIUM
DSouza, Brian Ghadaki, Farnaz
CANADA & UNITED KINGDOM CANADA & IRAN
Hasanbegovic, Amir Haylock, Thomas
NORWAY CANADA
Jurado Gallardo, Maria de los Angeles Koide, Takahiro
SPAIN JAPAN
Kumar, Nelanuthala Sudheer La Torre, Simone
INDIA ITALY
Labzovsky, Ilia Li, Dong
ISRAEL CHINA
Lpez Telgie, Alejandro Ignacio Luft, Michael
CHILE ISRAEL
Matveenko, Vera Morris, Trevor
RUSSIAN FEDERATION CANADA
Pandya, Jigar Qedar, Ran
INDIA ISRAEL
Reid, Tyler Ressler, Gerhard
CANADA AUSTRIA
Rocha, Mauricio Teixeira Romano, Patrick
BRAZIL ITALY
Saether, Erik Soares Henriques, Rui Filipe
SOUTH AFRICA PORTUGAL
Su, Jinxin Sundlister, Tale
CHINA NORWAY
Terakado, Daiki Timofeev, Evgenii
JAPAN RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tsoukala, Sotiria Unterberger, Manuela
GREECE AUSTRIA
Urbanowicz, Maciej Vihmand, Mart
POLAND ESTONIA
Vrolijk, Ademir Wolf, Nadja
CANADA & NETHERLANDS GERMANY
Zhai, Zhengan
CHINA
iv International Space University, SSP 2011

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Abstract
ABSTRACT
Since the 1950s, artificial Earth satellites have undergone rapid development. Satellites are
currently employed in a wide variety of fields including communications, remote sensing,
meteorology, navigation, resources management, environment monitoring, scientific research,
and space exploration. Furthermore, these systems are being characterized by increasingly high
performance and compact form factor. As satellite technology develops, the industry continues
to pursue solutions that lower cost, raise performance, maximize return, and reduce
development time. Small satellite technology originated from the synthesis of these
requirements. Many countries, academic institutions, and private companies show great interest
in space technology development.
The Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs (Go SSP) was created by the participants of the
small satellites team project as part of the International Space University Space Studies Program.
This guidebook includes information that assists decision makers to justify, establish, develop,
and sustain a small satellite program. It is intended to support decision makers and program
managers who need to understand the overall landscape of the space community. For this
purpose, the motivations of stakeholders are analyzed, as well as the benefits derived from small
satellite programs. Additionally, small satellite trends and applications are presented along with
the different space community members and the relationships forming between them. As a final
step to provide the landscape overview, the legal and regulatory framework is outlined. Having a
comprehensive overview of the space landscape, decision makers can develop policies and
program concepts. Once the program concept has been defined, the organization details and
mission logistics can be solidified.
These steps will provide the reader with a basic overview of the process to establish sustainable
space capabilities. In order to fulfill the vision laid out, the reader is left to complete a more
detailed review of each section presented in this guidebook.
International Space University, SSP 2011 v

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Faculty Preface
FACULTY PREFACE
Non est ad astra mollis e terris via.

"There is no easy way from the Earth to the stars."
~ Senaca (Hercules Furens, line 437)
Over the last few years, we have seen a growing, world-wide interest in governmental and
nongovernmental organizations in establishing basic space technology development capacities
by implementing small satellite programs. These organizations are guided by very diverse
motivations and attracted by the wide range of benefits that can be derived from the use of
space technology and its applications. The more recent introduction of standards, like the
CubeSat standard for nano-satellites, has further contributed to the creation of a very active
community of small satellite developers. The introduction of standards has considerably lowered
the entry barriers for new space actors, including in countries that have previously only been
passive users of space applications.
In response to these developments, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
(UNOOSA) has established the Basic Space Technology Initiative (BSTI) under the framework
of the United Nations Program on Space Applications. As part of the activities under this
initiative, participants at the 2011 Space Studies Program (SSP) of the International Space
University (ISU) were tasked with creating a reference guide for parties interested in establishing
basic space technology capabilities through small satellite programs.
Thirty nine highly capable participants from twenty four countries and five continents accepted
the challenge and formed the Go SSP team to create the Guidebook on Small Satellite
Programs. The project team has created a concise and comprehensive guidebook that includes
best practices, advice, and lessons learned in setting up, and growing, small satellite programs.
The guidebook, aimed at organizational decision makers in academia, industry and government,
also includes opportunities, fallacies and challenges from past programs.
This team project (TP) was conducted in cooperation with UNOOSA from July through
September 2011. Experts with decades of combined experience in small satellite programs also
contributed with their advice and input. It is hoped that those that consider implementing small
satellite programs will find this guidebook helpful. The findings of the team project will also be
further considered under the BSTI.
It was a true pleasure and honor to work with this highly talented and motivated team of
participants. We wish them all success in their future plans and aspirations. We thank the entire
team for a job well done!
Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria, Summer 2011
Werner Balogh Wiley Larson Joshua Nelson

TP Co-Chair TP Co-Chair TP Teaching Associate
vi International Space University, SSP 2011

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Author Preface
AUTHOR PREFACE
"Good things come in small packages."

Unknown author
Space has always represented the final frontier from the first time people looked to the night sky
to the era of the International Space Station (ISS). As humans, we like to explore our
surroundings and expand our understanding through technological means. Space capability is an
important step in the evolution of a society. Today, research and development is done in many
cutting-edge fields, but space technology stands out as more attractive and inspirational.
A space program is viewed as a high-cost and complex endeavor; often unattainable by many
people and organizations that wish to enter the space community. Small satellites now provide
alternate ways of attaining the same objectives at lower cost and complexity compared to large
space programs. Through this guidebook, an effort is made to show that an interested party
could start a program with a mere 10,000 USD, little knowledge, and limited prior experience in
the field.
In the summer of 2011, thirty nine participants came together at the International Space
Universitys Space Studies Program in Graz, Austria to develop a comprehensive guidebook
about developing space capabilities and capacity through small satellite programs. The team
represented twenty four countries and many disciplines (engineers, scientists, project managers,
lawyers, marketers, government officials, academics, designers, and other experts) that provided
their expertise and knowledge and a lot of hard work to create this guidebook. This guidebook
includes research and analysis of the small satellite sector and endeavors to provide all of the
necessary steps that a decision maker must take to establish a small satellite space program.
Finally, we wish to thank Werner Balogh and Wiley Larson - our mentors and guides, Joshua
Nelson - our teaching associate, and all the ISU faculty members, participants, and guest
lecturers who gave their utmost attention, time, and support in this experience.
To all those who are establishing a new small satellite program using this guidebook, we wish to
conclude with the immortal words of Douglas Adams from the book The Hitchhikers Guide to the
Galaxy:
"Don't Panic."
Douglas Adams
Go SSP TEAM SSP11, Graz University of Technology, Austria.
International Space University, SSP 2011 vii

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ III
AUTHORS ...................................................................................................................................... IV
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... V
FACULTY PREFACE .................................................................................................................... VI
AUTHOR PREFACE .................................................................................................................... VII
INDEX OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................... XI
INDEX OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................XII
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ XIII
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................................2
1.3 HOW TO USE THIS GUIDEBOOK ...........................................................................................................3
2 RATIONALES AND BENEFITS............................................................................................5
2.1 RATIONALES ...........................................................................................................................................5
2.2 BENEFITS OF SMALL SATELLITE PROGRAMS ......................................................................................7
2.3 EXAMPLES OF SMALL SATELLITE MISSIONS: RATIONALES ..............................................................9
3 SMALL SATELLITE TRENDS AND APPLICATIONS ..................................................... 13
3.1 TECHNOLOGY TRENDS .......................................................................................................................13

3.1.1 Standardization ...................................................................................................................................13
3.1.2 Launch Opportunities ..........................................................................................................................13
3.1.3 Miniaturization ...................................................................................................................................13
3.1.4 Other Considerations............................................................................................................................14
3.2 SMALL SATELLITE APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................14
3.2.1 Satellite Communications .....................................................................................................................14
3.2.2 Global Navigation Satellite Systems .....................................................................................................16
3.2.3 Remote Sensing ....................................................................................................................................16
3.2.4 Scientific Applications ..........................................................................................................................17
3.3 EXAMPLES OF SMALL SATELLITE MISSIONS: APPLICATIONS .........................................................17
4 PLAYERS AND THEIR ROLES ........................................................................................... 19
4.1 PARTNERS ..............................................................................................................................................19
4.2 INVESTORS ............................................................................................................................................20
4.2.1 Public Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................20
4.2.2 Private Investment................................................................................................................................20
4.2.3 Public-Private Partnership....................................................................................................................21
viii International Space University, SSP 2011

4.3 SUPPLIERS..............................................................................................................................................21
4.4 CUSTOMERS ..........................................................................................................................................22
4.5 COMPETITORS ......................................................................................................................................22
4.6 REGULATORS ........................................................................................................................................23
4.7 EXAMPLES OF SMALL SATELLITE MISSIONS: PLAYERS ...................................................................23
5 LEGAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................................... 25
5.1 PRE-LAUNCH.........................................................................................................................................25
5.1.1 Frequency Allocation ...........................................................................................................................25
5.1.2 Registration of Space Objects................................................................................................................27
5.1.3 Domestic Law Considerations ..............................................................................................................28
5.2 LAUNCH .................................................................................................................................................28
5.3 IN-ORBIT ...............................................................................................................................................29
5.3.1 Jurisdiction and Ownership ..................................................................................................................29
5.3.2 Liability..............................................................................................................................................29
5.3.3 End of Life .........................................................................................................................................29
5.4 EXAMPLES OF SMALL SATELLITE MISSIONS: LEGAL ISSUES ..........................................................32
6 POLICY AND PROGRAM CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT................................................ 33

6.1 NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY ......................................................................................33
6.2 PROGRAM CONCEPT ............................................................................................................................35
6.3 REFINING TO A MISSION CONCEPT ..................................................................................................38
7 MISSION AND PROGRAM EXECUTION..........................................................................41
7.1 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT ........................................................41
7.1.1 Organizational Structure .....................................................................................................................41
7.1.2 Project Management.............................................................................................................................42
7.1.3 Project Control and Monitoring ............................................................................................................42
7.1.4 Marketing Strategy and Management...................................................................................................43
7.1.5 Human Resource Management.............................................................................................................43
7.1.6 Documentation ....................................................................................................................................44
7.2 MANAGING COSTS ...............................................................................................................................44
7.2.1 Project Costing.....................................................................................................................................46
7.2.2 Budgeting Specifics in Space Projects .....................................................................................................47
7.2.3 Space and Launch Insurance................................................................................................................47
7.3 MISSION ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN ............................................................................................49
7.3.1 Space Segment .....................................................................................................................................49
7.3.2 Ground Segment..................................................................................................................................54
7.3.3 User Segment ......................................................................................................................................56
7.3.4 Interfaces .............................................................................................................................................57
7.3.5 Launch ...............................................................................................................................................57
7.3.6 Commissioning ....................................................................................................................................58
7.3.7 Operations and Support.......................................................................................................................60
7.3.8 End of Mission ...................................................................................................................................61
7.4 INFRASTRUCTURE AND TEST FACILITIES .........................................................................................61
International Space University, SSP 2011 ix

7.4.1 Manufacturing and System-Level Tests.................................................................................................62

7.4.2 Spacecraft Assembly and Integration.....................................................................................................62
7.4.3 Environmental Testing .........................................................................................................................62
7.4.4 Launch Integration Testing and Facilities .............................................................................................63
7.4.5 Infrastructure Development ...................................................................................................................64
7.4.6 Software Assets....................................................................................................................................65
7.5 EXAMPLES OF SMALL SATELLITE MISSIONS: GROUND, LAUNCH AND USER SEGMENT ...........65
8 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 67
9 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 69
x International Space University, SSP 2011

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs List of Figures
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 6-1: Various elements affected by small satellite programs ..................................................33

Figure 6-2: 5 Cs approach to examining the space landscape ......................................................36
Figure 7-1: Project phases.......................................................................................................................46
Figure 7-2: Interaction of space, ground, and user segments of a mission ....................................49
International Space University, SSP 2011 xi

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs List of Tables
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Program strategy development considerations ...................................................................3

Table 1-2: Considerations for program and mission development....................................................4
Table 2-1: Rationales associated with academia, government, industry, and NPOs .......................6
Table 2-2: Typical benefits of small satellite programs........................................................................7
Table 2-3: Rationales for example missions ........................................................................................10
Table 3-1: Previous and planned communication missions ..............................................................15
Table 3-2: Examples of remote sensing missions...............................................................................16
Table 3-3: Examples of scientific missions..........................................................................................17
Table 3-4: Applications concerning the examples of small satellite missions ................................17
Table 4-1: Benefits and risks of governmental international cooperation ......................................19
Table 4-2: Partners, sponsors, suppliers, and customers related to the four example missions .23
Table 5-1: Basic steps checklist...........................................................................................................31
Table 5-2: Legal issues related to the four sample missions .............................................................32
Table 6-1: Space landscape relation to the 5 Cs ..............................................................................36
Table 7-1: Organizational and management details of small satellite projects ...............................45
Table 7-2: Satellite subsystems...............................................................................................................50
Table 7-3: Launch vehicles .....................................................................................................................59
Table 7-4: Ground, launch and user segment of small satellite missions .......................................66
xii International Space University, SSP 2011

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs List of Acronyms
LIST OF ACRONYMS
A
AAN AS Army, Air Force and Navy Assistance Society
AAUSAT AAlborg University SATellite
AIS Automatic Identification System
AISSAT-1 Automatic Identification System SATellite
AMSAT radio AMateur SATellite corporation
ARC Ames Research Center
ASP Astrobiology Small Payloads
B
BRITE BRIght-star Target Explorer
BSS Broadcasting Satellite Services
BST Berlin Space Technology
BSTI Basic Space Technology Initiative
C
CAD Computer Aided Design
CNES Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales
COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf
CPM Critical Path Method
CSA Canadian Space Agency
D
DFL David Florida Laboratory
DMC Disaster Monitoring Constellation
DoD Department of Defense
E
ECSS European Cooperation on Space Standardization
EMC ElectroMagnetic Compatibility
EOL End Of Life
EPFL cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne
ESA European Space Agency
ESTRACK European Space TRACKing
EU European Union
EUR Euros
EVM Earned Value Method
F
FFG ForschungsFrderungsGesellschaft (Austrian Research Promotion
Agency)
FFI Forsvarets Forsknings Institutt (Norwegian Defense Research
Establishment)
FSA Russian Federal Space Agency
FSS Fixed Satellite Services
G
GENSO Global Education Network for Satellite Operations
GEO Geostationary Earth Orbit
GIS Geographical Information System
International Space University, SSP 2011 xiii

GMAT General Mission Analysis Tool

GMP Geostationary Minisatellite Platform
GNB Generic Nanosatellite Bus
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite Systems
Go SSP Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs
GSTB Galileo System Test Bed
I
IADC Inter-Agency space Debris Coordination committee
IARU International Amateur Radio Union
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IMS Indian Miniaturized Satellite
INSA Israeli NanoSatellite Association
IP Internet Protocol
ISRO Indian Space Research Organisation
ISS International Space Station
ISU International Space University
ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulation
ITU International Telecommunication Union
J
JAXA Japan Aerospace eXploration Agency
JDCP Jhabua Development Communications Project
L
LEO Low Earth Orbit
M
MEMS Micro Electro Mechanical Systems
MEO Medium Earth Orbit
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
N
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASRDA National Space Research and Development Agency
NCUBE Norwegian CUBEsat
NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command
NPO Non Profit Organization
NSC Norwegian Space Centre
NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
NTS Navigation Technology Satellite
O
O/OREOS Organism/Organic Exposure to Orbital Stresses mission
OCDS Open Concurrent Design Server
OSS Open Source Software
OST Outer Space Treaty
P
PERT Program Evaluation and Review Techniques
PEST Political, Economical, Social, Technological
PPP Public-Private-Partnership
PROBA PRoject for On-Board Autonomy
PSLV Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle
xiv International Space University, SSP 2011

S
S/C Spacecraft
Satrec Satellite Technology Research Centre
SBAS Satellite Based Augmentation System
SDSC Satish Dhawan Space Centre
SEEDA South East England Development Agency
SPA Space plug-and-Play Avionics
SpaceCap Space notification system pc Capture
SRC/PAS Space Research Centre of Polish Academy of Science
SSAU State Space Agency of Ukraine
SSP Space Studies Program
SSTL Surrey Satellite Technology Limited
SSTV Slow Scan TeleVision
STEER Socio-cultural, Technological, Economical, Ecological, and
Regulatory
STK Satellite Tool Kit
STRaND Surreys Training, Research and Nanosatellite Demonstrator
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
T
TLE Two-Line Elements
TP Team Project
TU University of Technology
TU Graz Graz University of Technology
TUGSAT-1 Graz University of Technology Satellite
TVAC Thermal VAcuum Chamber
U
UHF Ultra High Frequency
UN United Nations
UNOOSA United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
UoSAT University of Surrey SATellite
USAF United States Air Force
USA United States of America
USD United States Dollars
UTIAS/SFL University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies / Space
Flight Laboratory
V
VAT Value Added Tax
VEGA Vettore Europeo di Generazione Avanzata
VKI von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics
W
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
International Space University, SSP 2011 xv

_______
This guidebook has a companion website at the following address:
http://gossp.isunet.edu
The website contains:

the latest version of the guidebook;
expanded tables and lists;
links to suppliers, reports, reviews, and news;
database of all references;
suggested bibliography;
schedule of presentations of the guidebook;
list of all contributors.
_______
xvi International Space University, SSP 2011

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
On October 4th, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik
I. It was the size of a basketball, weighed 84 kg and took 98 minutes to orbit the Earth. What
had been considered science fiction up to this point suddenly became reality and opened the
possibility for realizing the benefits made possible by space activities. Sputnik and the satellites
that followed changed the way we looked at the Earth.
The United States of America replied by launching their own small satellite, Explorer I, on
January 31st, 1958. Three years later, in June 1961, the United States Air Force (USAF)
catalogued 115 Earth-orbiting satellites (Portree and Loftus, 1999). In the following years, more
countries began launching satellites as a matter of national prestige.
These first satellites were mainly used for communications, remote sensing, navigation (initially
primarily for military use) and science missions. With the existing technical capabilities these
applications were best addressed by large satellites, and to increase their capabilities meant
increasing the size and mass. The cost, infrastructure, and know-how required to develop a
satellite were high; consequently, space missions were inaccessible to countries that lacked the
required resources.
Eventually, and in parallel with governmental space activities, a group of non-governmental

organizations, such as the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT) and the University of
Surrey, were able to demonstrate that one could build a satellite outside of large government
space programs. Starting in the 1960s, AMSAT began to build smaller satellites developed by
small groups of enthusiasts. Building on this experience the trend was continued by the
University of Surrey, which in the mid-1970s decided to create a satellite using Commercial Off-
The-Shelf (COTS) components to demonstrate a different approach to satellite design. Their
first satellite, University of Surrey Satellite (UoSAT-1), was launched in 1981 and was a success,
proving that the concept of lower-cost small satellites was feasible.
During the 1990s, interest in small satellites grew quickly among universities, governments,
businesses, and other organizations, because they provided a faster and cheaper way to start
their own satellite programs. This trend accelerated with technical advances in microelectronics
and with the definition of small satellite standards, such as the CubeSat standard (Lee, 2009).
Recently, the number of organizations involved in small satellite programs has increased
considerably and a very active small satellite community has emerged. More and more
organizations are considering embarking on small satellite programs. This is a welcome
development, with new small satellite missions contributing to advances in small satellite
technologies and their applications. However, it also creates new challenges. It is for this reason
that this guidebook has been written. Its purpose is to provide insight into developing space
capabilities through small satellite programs.
International Space University, SSP 2011 1

1.2 Scope
Whether the reader is a representative of an academic institution with a limited budget or a

representative of a government body tasked with launching a countrys space program with a
larger budget, this guidebook will help them understand the principal factors to embark on a
small satellite program. Implementing a small satellite project is a logical step in the process of
developing a space program. An understanding of the small satellite rationales and of the
institutional landscape is required to design an effective program and optimize the use of the
available resources.
As a matter of reference, the terms programs and projects are often used in this guidebook
and may be misconstrued. A program is the larger framework under which one or more
projects can be run. An example of the context for a program structure would be a space
agency, which may have a small satellite project under its purview. A project is considered at
the level of the satellite mission. A single satellite or constellation mission is considered a
project.
The small satellite design philosophy is different from that employed in large-scale satellite
programs. Small satellite designs have tighter constraints in both volume and mass compared to
larger satellite. The limited volume adds design constraints and limits the possibility of adding
complex spacecraft (S/C) systems as required for larger platforms. Subsystems are designed or
procured according to their low volume, ease of integration, low mass, and power consumption,
rather than on their reliability. Furthermore, redundant systems are often bulky and not included
unless they are absolutely necessary. Trade-offs in design practices do not always lead to a more
reliable S/C, but the lower cost approach generally allows a higher tolerance for risk and
reliability trade-offs. Simpler system designs allow for much shorter development times. The
design characteristics of small satellites make them particularly attractive as an initial option for
building space capability within a nation.
Even though small satellites are generally considered to be less complex, cheaper, and faster to
develop, there are many programmatic considerations that need to be understood and
addressed. This guidebook helps the reader understand the principal considerations needed to
develop a small satellite program. The program concept will be derived from an understanding
of the rationales, the market trends and applications, the roles of players, and the legal
framework (see Table 1-1).
Based on an initial program concept, policies and strategies can be adopted to help guide the
program forward. Well defined mission statements and policies can help structure the process
from identifying funding sources and partnerships, to deriving mission objectives and
requirements. Once a program concept and a strategy have been established that help define the
objectives, the logistics of creating a mission can be considered. But where does one start?
There are many decisions and trade-offs to consider. It is important to ensure that attention is
given to all phases of the mission: concept exploration, detailed development, production and
deployment, operations and support, and the end-of-mission life. This guidebook will not focus
on specific design issues; it will focus on high-level programmatic considerations.
2 International Space University, SSP 2011

Table 1-1: Program strategy development considerations

Who are the players? What are their motivations?
Rationales and Benefits What are the benefits of small satellite programs?
Do the benefits vary for different organizations?
How do small satellites help build space capability?
Trends and Applications What are the enablers of small satellite technologies?
What can small satellites do?
Who are builders and suppliers in the marketplace?
What partnerships are possible and needed?
Players and their Roles Who funds small satellite programs?
Who are the potential competitors?
Who would be the end-users of this endeavor?
What are the legal responsibilities and liabilities for
Legal Framework participating in space-related activities?
What legal and regulatory obligations exist?
What are responsible space practices?
These design considerations give the reader a reasonable perspective what needs to be
considered when embarking on a small satellite program. Unfortunately, there is no single best
solution or approach. Cost reduction methods will highly depend on the available local
resources and sources of funding. Going through design considerations for an entire mission life
cycle will provide a top-level overview of the typical elements involved in a small mission. This
will provide a general overview of the scope and complexity of the endeavor.
1.3 How to use this Guidebook
This guidebook is structured to provide the overall programmatic considerations necessary for
starting a small satellite program. Each section provides additional elements of a mission and
concludes with a table showing how these elements relate to a representative set of small
satellite missions. The examples discuss a broad range of small satellite programs that have
developed satellites in various classes in terms of size, budget, partnerships, and mission types.
It is recommended that all sections should be read in the order presented. Chapters 2 through 5
lay the foundations for rationales, trends, partnerships, and for the legal and regulatory
framework, which leads to the definition of a program strategy, described in Chapter 6. Chapter
7 focuses on small satellite program development, small satellite missions and best practices. If
the reader already has a small satellite mission concept in mind, it is possible to proceed directly
to the programmatic elements in Chapter 7.

Table 1-2 presents an array of programmatic considerations that span all the mission phases
along with a series of questions that should be addressed.
Table 1-2: Considerations for program and mission development

Organizational and How should the program be structured?
Project Planning How does the program grow?
How should the project be structured?
How are marketing strategy and marketing management
Marketing Management relevant?
How to leverage available tools for cost-effective planning?
What range of expertise is required?
Human Resources How many people are needed?
Is all the required know-how available? If not how can it be
acquired?
Managing Costs How is overall mission cost estimated?
What happens if there are delays in schedule?
Insurance Will insurance be required?
If so, what type of insurance is needed?
To what extent should design and development be done in-
Design Approach house or outsourced? What are the hardware and software
COTS options?
Is custom satellite software or COTS more appropriate?
What are the satellite design drivers?
Space Segment What orbit or constellation configuration is needed?
Which are the significant space environment issues that one
needs to be aware of?
Is a dedicated ground system required?
Ground Segment Can ground system services be outsourced?
Could distributed ground support be used?
What are the users requirements?
User Segment What application support is required for interpreting the
delivered data?
What opportunities are available for launch?
Launch How much flexibility is required for orbit configuration?
What alternatives exist to offset or minimize launch costs?
Commissioning and How much time has been allotted for commissioning?
Mission Operations What margin is available to account for delays or failures?
Are active or passive methods preferred for satellite
End of Mission Option decommissioning?
What de-orbiting methods are available for small satellites?
Infrastructure and What infrastructure is required?
Testing Should infrastructure be built in-house?
Should outsourced services be used?

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Rationales and Benefits
2 RATIONALES AND BENEFITS
There is an increasing number of academic, industrial, government, and Non-Profit

Organizations (NPO) interested in the development of small satellite programs. Small satellites
offer these organizations innovative solutions for meteorology, environmental,
telecommunications, space exploration, disaster monitoring via remote sensing. Small satellite
programs are also a means to build a basic space technology capability. It has been recognized
that these activities can result in technological, economical, social, and political benefits for their
sponsoring organization (United Nations, 2010; UNISPACE III, 1998).
2.1 Rationales
The primary organizations engaged in the space community are academia, government, and
industry. In addition, there are NPOs, such as radio amateurs, that have demonstrated
competence in the field and that have contributed to significant advancements in small satellite
development. In order to understand the rationales of these organizations for participating
within the space community, it is necessary to understand the social, political, economical, and
technological context from which these motivations derive.
At a high level, one can identify the principal motivations for each organization (see Table 2-1).
The primary motivation for academia is to educate, advance knowledge and science, and gain a
reputation through high-quality work. Governments are motivated to engage in activities that
address the needs of its people. Industry is motivated to fulfill tasks that produce revenue to
sustain and grow the business. Amateur groups undertake projects mainly for personal interest
and enjoyment.
Small satellites are an attractive learning tool because they can be developed by a small team in a
short period of time and generally can operate with limited facilities and budget. This is a
valuable opportunity for students to gain hands-on experience with space hardware and
software. An example of using small satellites as an effective learning tool is the development of
CubeSats. AAlborg University SATellite (AAUSAT) II was built by students from Aalborg
University in Denmark for use as a gamma ray detector (AAUSAT II, 2011). Additional
examples can be found in the official CubeSat website (CubeSat, 2011).
Additionally, motivations for scientific and technological advancements are often

interdisciplinary; space can be used as a platform for experiments in astrobiology, life science,
remote sensing, or testing of new technologies and procedures. For example, the QB50, a large-
scale international collaborative project, examines temporal and spatial variations of the lower
thermosphere (VKI, 2011).

Table 2-1: Rationales associated with academia, government, industry, and NPOs
Rationale Academia Government Industry NPO
Increase national security X
Increase prestige X X
Increase scientific
X X
knowledge
Enhance education, and
X X X X
technical knowledge
Enhance military
X
capability
Create basis for space
X X
commercialization
Provide tangible benefits
X X X X
to society
Assist in social
X X X
development
Driven by personal
X
interest
Prestige is a common motivation for both academia and governments. In academia, the
development of more advanced missions compared to competing research centers or
universities translates into higher funding, allowing the institution to increase the educational
opportunities for its students. Establishing space capability is a challenge for any government,
but those nations that create and maintain a space program place themselves in a better strategic
position than other nations. The most famous example of international prestige is Sputnik I, the
first artificial satellite placed in Earth orbit. This feat allowed the Soviet Union to take a step
ahead of the United States in 1957, an action which ultimately resulted in the space race of the
1960s.
Another rationale for government small satellite space activities is to develop national defense
capabilities. For example, small satellites are being considered for tracking applications which
can be used to protect border interests. Additionally, the information obtained through remote
sensing of other countries is a valuable strategic asset. Rationales for governments are also
economical and societal. Economic rationales include establishing a basis for space
commercialization. Societal rationales include providing tangible benefits directly to the people
such as using satellites to support disaster management efforts (Logsdon, 2011).
The motivations of industry are to leverage knowledge and resources by providing products and
services for monetary gain. Industry is primarily concerned with generating sufficient return on
investment in order to maintain the existing workforce and develop future applications, while
also generating profits.

Non-Profit Organizations are primarily driven by the personal interest of their members, but
can also provide educational and societal benefits. For example, the Israeli Nano Satellite
Association (INSA), an NPO composed of professionals from the Israeli space industry,
maintains a close relationship with academia. In this organization, students under the
supervision and guidance of INSA perform research initiatives to propose new projects. The
most successful among them are implemented and the return on investment of time and funds
comes in the form of education and capability building (Rockberger, 2009).
Another example of an NPO is AMSAT, an organization of amateur radio satellite enthusiasts.

This group has created and operated numerous satellites to extend person-to-person global
radio communication. Over time, the goals for each satellite mission have increased and projects
have become more ambitious. These satellites are produced via unconventional design and
funding methods that have made their way into the small satellite community (AMSAT, 2011).
2.2 Benefits of Small Satellite Programs
Organizations may have varying rationales for the creation of a small satellite program. Interest
in small satellite programs typically increases when the benefits derived from these programs
align with an organizations strategy. The primary benefits of small satellite programs are listed
in Table 2-2, irrespective of the organizational rationales. These benefits range from the
demonstration of a groups technical capabilities to application developments that serve society.
Table 2-2: Typical benefits of small satellite programs

Benefits Academia Government Industry NPO
Training and education X X X
Technology advancement X X X X
Shorter time-to-science
X X
return
Increase technical
X X X X
expertise
Develop commercial
X X
opportunities
International cooperation X X X
Build space capabilities
X X X
and sustainability
Prestige and reputation X X X X
Space promotion and
X X
advocacy
Applications X X X

Government organizations may establish a small satellite program as a means of capability

building, managing natural resources, performing operations related to national security, enable
commercial applications, stimulating innovation, environmental and agricultural monitoring,
conducting scientific research, and ultimately furthering national policy.
These benefits are in line with the policies, priorities, goals, and strategies set forth by many
governments and it is easily seen how using space resources can further these goals. In the past,
the high expense, complexity of programs, and lack of expertise made it difficult for small or
developing countries to justify space programs. Small satellite programs, however, provide a
feasible starting point for becoming an active part of the space community.
There are many examples of how small satellite programs provide benefits that fit the rationales
of various organizations. For example, instruments on small satellites can be used in disaster risk
monitoring for floods, forest fires, and earthquakes. Images obtained shortly after disasters can
help save lives and reduce economic fallout. Satellite systems can provide fast and reliable access
to data during disasters that can be used to better plan the distribution of emergency personnel
and services (UNISPACE III, 1998). Some countries have collaborated to produce
constellations of small satellites that increase redundancy during emergency situations, improve
access, and decrease revisit times (Lappas et al., 2006). One such example is the Disaster
Monitoring Constellation (DMC) that was developed by Surrey Satellite Technology Limited
(SSTL). It is used for disaster response within the United Nations (UN) International Charter
(United Nations, 2009) as well as for commercial imaging programs (SSTL, 2011).
Societal benefits can also help justify the use of small satellite programs. For example, small
satellites can be used to transfer data to and from remote areas where access to communication
systems is reduced. Tele-education and tele-medicine, which depend on satellite
telecommunication systems, provide substantial benefits that increase the quality of services
provided to rural areas (UNISPACE III, 1998). Tele-education systems enable teachers and
students to be located in different geographic locations and aid in the collaboration of
educational projects. For example, the Indian Jhabua Development Communications Project
(JDCP), which was developed between 1996 and 1998 and provides connectivity to rural areas.
This system was installed in 150 villages and provides education in agriculture and forestry, as
well as healthcare. Although large telecommunication satellites were used in this project, small
satellite programs now have the capability to meet some of these needs (Bhaskaranarayana,
2009). Similarly, tele-medicine systems are used to transmit vital service information to medical
centers in rural locations. This allows for the identification of areas that are lacking services that
can ultimately lead to an improved overall distribution of services (UNISPACE III, 1998).
Examples clearly show the potential benefits, but the costs of such programs would need to be
evaluated to determine if the programs are worthwhile.
Government space policies endeavor to provide new commercial opportunities for industry and
promote new markets in areas of subsystems, launch, and infrastructure. To operate a
sustainable business, any commercial small satellite developer needs to maintain profits
(Carayannis et al., 2000).

Specifically, smaller companies can compete in the space technology market by constructing
small satellites to perform tasks that were traditionally the domain of larger companies and more
expensive S/C. Some small satellites use modular designs and commercial off-the-shelf
components and consequently, the cost of these systems decrease (Sandau et al., 2010).
Research groups in academic institutions can use small satellite programs to enable both
scientific research and technology development missions. For example, scientific payloads to
monitor ozone or carbon dioxide (CO2) can be deployed on low-cost small satellites with short
development periods (Sadin et al., 1994). Initiating a program to design and build small satellites
requires a variety of skills, capabilities, and talents. Academic institutions can use such programs
to introduce and develop educational activities in space technology. This approach is not
exclusive to academia, but research institutions and companies are more likely to design, build,
and operate small satellites to further develop and improve their human infrastructure (Ozalp,
2009). This approach may lead to new technologies and innovations, such as miniaturized
components that are optimal for small platforms. Examples include components such as micro-
optical systems, mini-thrusters, and sensors (Mncheberg et al., 1996).
The design philosophy employed in small satellite design is amenable to new technology
development. Technology demonstration is often a defined mission goal. Consequently, space
technology can evolve faster and new technologies can be tested in orbit (Bradford, 2003). The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery programs, the Japanese
Hypersat class, and the European Space Agency (ESA) Project for On-Board Autonomy
(PROBA) are examples of programs that have flown technology demonstration missions where
technology verification or evaluation has occurred (UNISPACE III, 1998).
By understanding the benefits and rationales of industry, government, and academia, one can
determine the appropriate justifications that compel these organizations to participate in small
satellite programs.
2.3 Examples of Small Satellite Missions: Rationales
In this guidebook, many concepts and mission elements related to small satellite program
development are discussed. The reality is that there are a number of ways to approach small
satellite programs and no comprehensive way to describe them. This guidebook presents
options and context that help decision makers frame their own program and mission concepts.
Several examples of small satellite missions are provided to demonstrate different organizational
structures, mission scopes, and sizes of platforms. These examples will flow through each
section of the guidebook as a series of tables.

Table 2-3 presents the first set of examples and describes the SwissCube, NigeriaSat, BRIght-
star Target Explorer (BRITE), and Yubileiny missions.
Table 2-3: Rationales for example missions

BRITE
SwissCube NigeriaSat Yubileiny
(Florian, 2011)
(EPFL, 2009) (Argoun, 2010) (AMSAT, 2011)
(TUGRAZ, 2011)
Provide dynamic Technology transfer Education and Promotion of the
and realistic learning (NigeriaSat-X) training of students Russian space
environment at the Training (25 on designing and program (voice
Ecole Nigerian engineers testing of the messages, Slow
Polytechnique on-site at the SSTL satellite Scan Television
Fdrale de facilities during Space research (SSTV) slides,
Lausanne (EPFL) satellite design and (BRITE-Austria - imitation of the
Education and testing) first Austrian Sputnik signal for
training of students satellite) the 50th anniversary)
Ownership of
and staff on how to space-based and Ongoing Cooperation of
build a complex supporting ground cooperation Russian universities
engineering system assets with low between universities with industry
from start to finish capital expenditure, in Canada, Poland, (analysis of
Testing of a new in line with national and Austria telemetry data)
sensor (now budgets of Technology transfer Ability to publish
commonly used on developing nations through the use of experimental results
many spacecraft) Ownership of data common platforms
and control over Combination of
data acquisition different expertise
Economic (e.g., Austria:
opportunities via satellite
collaborative communication;
consortiums Canada: satellite
Space-related stabilization
capability building systems, and test
in organizations facilities; Poland:
with the goal of optical and
sustainable mechanical systems)
development
Rationale: Rationale: Rationale: Rationale:
education and national prestige education and scientific,
technological prestige technological
development development, and
prestige
The SwissCube program built the first Swiss-based satellite. This program followed the CubeSat
standard and was built by more than 180 students from different universities under the
supervision of the Space Center EPFL. In the SSTL-100 program, Nigeria initiated a space
program with SSTL through a technology transfer program to develop space capabilities. In the
BRITE program three countries (Canada, Austria, and Poland) are collaborating with
involvement from academia, industry, and government to produce six 20 cm nano-satellite
platforms that will form a constellation. BRITE will perform astronomy research and will be
considered from the perspective of the Austrian partner. In the Yubileiny program example, the
Russian government, academia, and industry collaborated to create a satellite for educational,
scientific, and research purposes.

The four example satellite projects will be carried through the remainder of the guidebook to
provide a comprehensive illustration of a set of real small satellite projects and all of the
elements involved in setting up and operating the program.
The information presented in Table 2-3 shows how each satellite program derives benefits from
a mission. A common benefit throughout these examples is education and training. In the case
of the Yublieni satellite, education is directed at the general public, whereas the other satellites
are related more to capability building and expertise. Another major benefit from these projects
stems from collaboration and technology transfer. An evaluation process for quantifying these
benefits needs to be performed after a mission has been completed.

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Small Satellite Trends and Applications
3 SMALL SATELLITE TRENDS AND

APPLICATIONS
Advancements in technology and reduction of costs of small satellites combined with the large
number of benefits that can be derived from small satellite programs have led to a general
upward growth in the number of small satellites developed and launched over the past decade
(DePasquale et al., 2010).
Small satellites can be developed more rapidly, have more cost-effective launch options, and are
likely to be less complex than their larger counterparts (Foust, J., 2010). Small satellites are also
able to perform many tasks, varying from remote sensing to communications systems, with
capabilities that had been previously limited to the domain of larger satellite platforms. The
range of small satellite applications and capabilities are discussed in Section 3.2.
3.1 Technology Trends
The following sections outline some of the enabling market and technology trends for small
satellite programs.
3.1.1 Standardization
Standardization plays a major role in the small satellite world. Within the space community there
is a growing trend to use plug and play components, and to develop standard small satellite
platforms that perform a variety of applications. There is also a significantly lower price
associated with these smaller platforms compared to that of a custom-designed larger satellites
(Villain, 2011). For instance, satellites based on the CubeSat standard have become popular
among educational institutions.
3.1.2 Launch Opportunities
Relatively low-cost launch opportunities are available to place small satellites into orbit. The
practice of converting ballistic missiles into launch vehicles (for example, Dnepr, Minotaur, and
Cosmos) has become popular, because of the low cost of rocket development and the resulting
lower launch cost (Villain, 2011). The trend towards larger launch capacity provides more
opportunities for small satellites as secondary payload passengers (piggyback), to use the excess
volume and mass margins.
3.1.3 Miniaturization
Miniaturization of components and systems is a leading technology trend. According to an

extensive analysis of 270 small satellites performed in a joint study by SpaceWorks Commercial,
CSP Japan, Inc., and IHI Aerospace Co., Ltd., advancements in electronic miniaturization has
led to the rise in small satellite launch rates in the late 1980s and mid 1990s (DePasquale et al.,
2010). As a result of this progress, satellites are becoming smaller; every CubeSat mission is an
example of how miniaturization plays an important role in current satellite development.

The Yubileiny satellite, built by the Russian ISS-Reshetnev Company and launched in 2008, is
also an example of this trend. One of Yubileiny's payloads was a transmitter that broadcasted
the same signal as the first artificial Earth satellite, Sputnik I. Yubileiny carried more payloads
than Sputnik I and had an overall mass of 48 kg (compared to Sputnik I at 84 kg). This
reduction in mass is an example of the evolution of this field over the last five decades
(AMSAT, 2011; Garber, 2007).
3.1.4 Other Considerations
Advancements in various components and technologies are another enabling factor for small
satellite programs. For example, breakthrough technologies for battery and power control,
high-efficiency solar cells, and deployable solar arrays [] are being utilized or researched
(Groswald et al., 2010). Some of these technologies are being transferred from non-space
sectors, and are known as spin-ins, while some space technologies are utilized in non-space
fields, as spin-offs. An example of consumer electronics being used as a 'spin-in' technology is
the smartphone. Organizations such as NASA-Ames and University of Surrey are looking at
smart-phone based satellites with their PhoneSat (Stone, 2011) and Surreys Training, Research
and Nanosatellite Demonstrator (STRaND) (SSTL, 2011) projects.
Cross-industry impacts and trends in emerging markets should also be considered as part of
understanding the overall space landscape. Examples of emerging opportunities include
biomedical research for commercial purposes to test potential drugs in the microgravity
environment, and an interesting hybrid of smallsats and ISS research (Foust, 2010, pp.3).
3.2 Small Satellite Applications
Decision makers interested in starting a small satellite program need to determine the most
appropriate satellite applications for their ultimate program goals. The applications discussed in
the following sections are Earth observation, Earth and space science, satellite communications,
and navigation. It should be kept in mind that although small satellites are achieving greater
capabilities as technology evolves, there will always be limitations to small satellite capabilities
due to physical and other constraints. However, for many application cases the capabilities of a
small satellite platform are sufficient and provide a more cost-effective solution. For instance,
while Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) require larger satellite platforms, there are
many small satellite missions that use GNSS signals to provide effective navigation applications.
3.2.1 Satellite Communications
Small satellites are able to provide a host of communications capabilities, like disaster
monitoring and asset tracking. These communications systems can be solely space based but can
also incorporate terrestrial systems to maximize the quality of the service delivered. For
example, in the event of a disaster, terrestrial infrastructure may be deficient or, in severe cases,
destroyed.

In such instances, timely medical aid and efficient distribution of emergency services are critical.
Small satellites can support coordination efforts as well as facilitate communication for medical
data transfer. More importantly, these systems can be used for mitigation purposes and thereby
contribute to limiting the overall impact of natural catastrophes on human lives and property
damage (Morton and Mostert, 2002).
Space-based communication systems have been traditionally associated with large satellites
located in Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO). Due to recent technology developments, small
satellites have become more attractive in the communications industry as a complementary,
rather than alternative, solution to global communication services (Berlocher, 2008). Currently,
small satellites have the ability to accommodate more sophisticated payloads than previously
possible. Furthermore, the delay times from Earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) are significantly
shorter than from Earth to GEO, especially when using inter-satellite optical links. By utilizing
satellite constellations with inter-satellite communication capabilities (including GEO satellites),
highly efficient communication systems may be realized (Amos, 2011). Such a system is well
suited for high-bandwidth Internet Protocol (IP) services. As small satellites become more
sophisticated, future applications such as video conferencing, tele-education, tele-medicine,
telephone services, and television services may become a reality. The following table lists some
examples of previous and planned small satellite missions for communication.
Table 3-1: Previous and planned communication missions

Country / No. of
Project Name Year Mass Application
Institution Satellites
Global
LatinSat and communication, data
2002- Argentina /
AprizeSat 12 kg transfer, fixed and 8
2011 Aprize Satellite
(Aprize Satellite, 2011) mobile asset tracking
and monitoring
Education and
training, store and
ANUSAT India / Anna forward
2009 40 kg 1
(Thyagarajan, 2005) University communication,
technology
demonstration
Disaster management
LAPAN-ORARI
by amateur radio,
(National Institute of Indonesia /
satellite
Aeronautics and Space, 2011 Berlin University 70 kg 1
communication and
2010) of Technology
monitoring using a
(Hardhienata, 2005)
camera
Commercial ship
tracking (identity,
M3MSat Canada /
2012 75 kg location, heading), 1
(Chen et al., 2010) COM DEV
detection of collision
and distress signals

3.2.2 Global Navigation Satellite Systems
Small satellite missions typically operate in LEO whereas many GNSS operate in Medium Earth
Orbit (MEO). Consequently, navigation has not been a widespread application of small satellite
systems. Nevertheless, efforts are being made to apply low-cost techniques to small satellites not
only in LEO but also in MEO and GEO.
The benefits of advanced low-cost navigation satellites have been recognized by different
ventures such as SSTL. SSTL undertook several studies in order to evaluate the capabilities of
their Geostationary Minisatellite Platform (GMP) as a low-cost GNSS and Satellite Based
Augmentation System (SBAS). As a result, SSTL has been awarded the contract to build the first
demonstration GALILEO satellite named Galileo System Test Bed GSTB-V2/A. Due to the
decreased mass of this satellite, in comparison to existing navigation satellites, one can foresee
that future developments will enable small satellites to be used for navigation purposes (Pafett et
al., 2003).
3.2.3 Remote Sensing
Remote sensing consists of active and passive observation of the Earths surface and its
immediate surroundings (for example, the atmosphere) from space. It is a very useful
application to improve our understanding of phenomena occurring on Earth and to provide
highly detailed images of the surface of the Earth (its first use was in a reconnaissance satellite
with military purposes).
Remote sensing satellite missions include the investigation of the atmosphere, magnetosphere,
ionosphere, and radiation belts, as well as gravimetric, geodesic, and meteorological studies.
Ocean observation can be used to produce maps of water temperature, water surface
topography and wind vector fields. Land observations can be used in the analysis of vegetation,
snow and ice cover, volcanic effects, and temperature on the surface of Earth. Furthermore,
monitoring disasters like fires and floods are well-known capabilities of small, remote sensing
satellites.
One example is the ESAs PROBA that was developed to demonstrate technology. This mission
was an in-orbit trial and demonstration of both Earth observation and space environment
instruments to test improved techniques and develop innovative technology (Xue et al, 2008).
Table 3-2 lists two satellite missions with remote sensing payloads.
Table 3-2: Examples of remote sensing missions

Country / No. of
Satellite Name Year Mass Application
RASAT
Turkey/ Tubitak
(Askar and Tekinalp, 2011 93 kg Earth Observation 1
Uzay
2000)
Nigeria /
National Space
NigeriaSat-1 Earth Observation
2003 Research and 98 kg 1
(Kramer et al., 2008) Disaster Monitoring
Development
Agency (NASRDA)

3.2.4 Scientific Applications
Space science focuses on research to enhance scientific knowledge. Space science missions
include astronomy, interplanetary and deep space probes, as well as microgravity experiments.
Two mission examples are given in Table 3-3. In the past, most space science missions were
accomplished with large satellites, typically with masses greater than 100 kg. Due to the
miniaturization of sub-components and payloads, small satellites are performing more space
science missions.
Recent missions have addressed fundamental questions in astrobiology using what have become
known as Astrobiology Small Payloads (ASP). The Organism/Organic Exposure to Orbital
Stresses mission (O/OREOS) monitors how exposure to space radiation and weightlessness
influences biological samples and organic molecules (Ehrenfreund et al., 2011). The science
output is data on the environmental limits of life and biological systems in the space
environment.
An example of a constellation (a group of satellites working together) of science satellites is

currently under development and is referred to as the QB50 mission. The QB50 mission is an
international network of 50 CubeSats, which will provide multi-point, in-situ measurements in
the lower thermosphere.
Table 3-3: Examples of scientific missions

Country / No. of
Satellite Name Year Mass Application
United States of
GeneSat-1 (triple America (USA) / Biological cultures in
CubeSat) 2007 NASA-Ames 4.6 kg microgravity 1
(Xue et al., 2008) Research Center environment
(ARC)
Themis USA / Study magnetospheric
2007 127 kg 5
(Xue et al., 2008) NASA substorms
3.3 Examples of Small Satellite Missions: Applications
Table 3-4: Applications concerning the examples of small satellite missions

SwissCube NigeriaSat BRITE Yubileiny
(Gunter, 2011) (SSTL, 2011) (TUGRAZ, 2011) (AMSAT, 2011)
Space science Earth observation Space science Research activities
Airglow phenomena Agricultural Research on Scientific and
(atmosphere monitoring brightness technological
photoluminescence Disaster oscillations of experiments (like
at 100 km altitude) management and massive luminous nano-coatings for
relief stars by differential protection against
photometry radiation)
NigeriaSat-X
interfaces with Sound messages
NigeriaSat-1 and pictures
transmission
(amateur radio)


Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Players and Their Roles
4 PLAYERS AND THEIR ROLES
This chapter focuses on the main players within the space sector and their respective roles.
Typically, there are six categories of players: partners, investors, suppliers, customers,
competitors, and regulators. The chapter includes details about advantages and disadvantages of
partnerships, types of funding sources, suppliers, and potential investors.
4.1 Partners
Space activities are inherently expensive, risky, and challenging endeavors, which require long
development times and skilled human resources. The required elements are not necessarily
found in a single organization, so forming partnerships allows for the sharing of risk, cost, and
resources. Successful partnerships start with a written agreement between the cooperating
organizations, usually referred to as a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which clearly
outlines the responsibilities and deliverables of each partner.
Establishing a partnership may have disadvantages, like creating dependencies and increasing
complexity. These disadvantages occur because of the need to manage and synchronize activities
of organizations with different structures. To overcome these problems more human resources,
time and budget may be required (Logsdon, 2011). On a government level, international
cooperation provides benefits such as increased political stability between countries sharing a
successful project. The major benefits and risks are summarized in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Benefits and risks of governmental international cooperation

Benefits Risks and Cost
Increase payoffs Create dependencies
Share costs Lose control of the critical path
Acquire access to needed technology, Increase managerial complexity and overall
experience and facilities costs
Increased political support Unwanted technology transfer as a
consequence of sharing knowledge for a
greater good
Create or strengthen good relations among Security risks because of dual-use technology
entities
Exercise influence over partners Political risks if cooperation fails
Demonstrate leadership Create future competitors
Source: Logsdon, 2011
Cooperation between academic institutions is a common way of building relationships and

pooling resources for a global project. The QB50 project, led by the von Karman Institute for
Fluid Dynamics (VKI) is a consortium of universities and research institutes. They received 75
Letters of Intent from universities interested in participating in the project by building one or
more of the satellite buses (VKI, 2011). These satellites will all carry the same payload and use
the Global Education Network for Satellite Operations (GENSO) to transmit the results (VKI,
2011).

The Graz University of Technology (TU Graz) has been developing TUGSAT-1 but did not
have the facilities in place in order to perform the necessary thermal vacuum testing. TU Graz
performed these tests by utilizing the facilities of their Polish partners at the Space Research
Center of the Polish Academy of Science (SRC/PAS). This allowed TU Graz to successfully
complete their required tests as well as save cost in the process. This exchange also was of
benefit to their Polish partners as it provided hands-on training for their personnel as well as
technical data for use in their thermal subsystem design. (Unterberger, 2011)
Razak satellite is an example of an industry partnership between Astronautic Technology Sdn

Bhd in Malaysia and the Satellite Technology Research Centre (Satrec) Initiative in South Korea
with the objective of encouraging technology transfer and collaboration through development
of a high resolution small satellite (Yusof, 2005).
4.2 Investors
Raising funds is an inevitable step in creating a space program. Sometimes the success of a space
project depends more on the project managers communication, lobbying, and negotiating skills
rather than on brilliant engineering work (Wertz and Larson, 2008).
It is easier to raise funds in small satellite programs where the funding requirement is lower than
in larger satellite programs. Still this task requires preparation and hard work to convince
investors and sponsors. Before going to investors, it is important to prepare a business plan to
explain how the funds will be used at each stage of the program.
The three main sources of funding for space projects are public sources, private investments,
and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). These sources are described in the following sections.
4.2.1 Public Funding Sources
Public funding is often used when the possibility exists for considerable military, scientific,
political or macro-economic outcomes. Public funds can take the form of grants issued by
governments, public agencies, or research institutions.
SSTL, for example, was awarded a grant to start the design phase of TechDemoSat-1, a satellite
aiming at demonstrating the United Kingdoms innovation in space (SSTL, 2011). The grant was
awarded by the United Kingdoms Technology Strategy Board and the South East England
Development Agency (SEEDA).
4.2.2 Private Investment
Private investment is widely used for funding small space programs. Private investors often
expect a return on their investment and an early return is usually better than a later return on
investment. Sources of private investment are usually banks, investment banks, venture
capitalists and wealthy individuals. A company can acquire funding directly from financial
markets through the Initial Public Offers of shares or by issuing corporate bonds

Donations offer yet another way to obtain funds with no expectations of repayment or profit.
An example of such donations is the Israeli small satellite Gurwin-II TechSat, which was funded
mostly through donations from the American Society for Technion led by Joseph Gurwin
(ASRI, 2011).
4.2.3 Public-Private Partnership
Public-Private Partnership scenarios are used when there is a need for certain applications or
services in an area not traditionally funded by private investors. In this case, the financial
contribution is carried out simultaneously by public and private stakeholders that often share
mutual goals. In these projects, determining the different interests of both stakeholders becomes
essential. While the interests of the public partner might remain general and focused on wider
interests for society, private partners usually seek a more direct and profit-oriented outcome.
The PPP relationship can be defined by the level of ownership of the project implementing
body, or on a basis of long-term contracts in a specific consortium.
The Stuttgart small satellite program of the University of Stuttgart is a good example of a PPP
involving academia, research organizations, and industrial partners (University of Stuttgart,
2011). Another example of successful PPP involving several organizations is CANEUS, an
NPO that undertakes small satellite program activities together with various governmental
entities. These activities span project planning, designing, building, launching, and operating,
including further consulting in order to help emerging space countries reach independent status
of running their own satellite programs (Pimprikar, 2011).
4.3 Suppliers
Suppliers of parts, components, assemblies and sub-systems are essential to the success of any
small satellite program. The numbers and types of suppliers required by a small satellite
program is determined by the dimension of the program, the diversity of expertise required, and
time constraints. The supplied product can be hardware, software, service, or even know-how.
Suppliers for small satellite components can serve the space market in general, be specialized
specifically for small satellites, or primarily serve other markets. Often there is more than just a
single supplier for each component, and the project can benefit from the competition.
Products purchased from general space market suppliers will often be more expensive since they
are typically space qualified, and may be not be appropriate to the need of small satellites in
terms of mass, volume, power consumption, complexity and standardization. On the other
hand, they will likely be more reliable.
With the increasing popularity of small satellites, many specialized suppliers exist. For example,
CubeSat components can be bought from Pumpkin Inc., CubeSatShop, Clyde Space,
GOMSpace, and a host of others. Most of these small satellite suppliers are spin-offs from
universities or research institutions who began by selling the products they developed for their
own small satellite missions. Products purchased from suppliers specializing in small satellite
components will be more suitable to mission needs, but they might not be delivered with all the
qualification and acceptance tests required, and they are less likely to already be space qualified.

Specialized on-board computers, for example, can be purchased at a high price from a major
aerospace company. Cheaper on-board computers adapted to the needs of small satellites can be
bought from CubeSatShop (between 3,000 EUR and 33,300 EUR), but they are not space
qualified (CubeSat, 2011).
4.4 Customers
A customer purchases services or goods (Partridge, 2002). That somewhat implies the presence
of commercial interests followed by the small satellite program. However, small satellite
programs in academia do not necessarily aim for commercial goals at least not at the
beginning; they usually do not deliver goods or services in a classical sense such as traditional
satellite missions for communications or remote sensing. Hence, there are not always customers
for a small satellite mission. However, in order to keep the small satellite program sustainable
and ongoing considerations to approach commercial markets should be made, because the
funding landscape could detrimentally change. However, there are many possibilities to do this.
The questions to ask in that respect are, What is the unique good or service to be offered?,
Where are the strength and weaknesses of the offer? and most important Who are the
potential customers and what are the needs they would pay for?. There are many goods and
services that stem from small satellite programs. New hardware components, software,
technologies, applications and services such as education, training, consulting, and marketing are
examples of spin-offs from small satellite programs.
In the case of NigeriaSat, the National Space Research and Development Agency of Nigeria
(NASRDA) bought the satellites from SSTL (SSTL, 2011). Furthermore, in order to sustain the
Nigerian space capability, the NigeriaSat satellites provide services to commercial markets
through the DMC consortium for example (Sun, 2005).
4.5 Competitors
Three main types of competition may arise: technology competition, application competition,
and commercial competition.
Technology competition exists among suppliers proposing alternate solutions for the same
objectives. Many suppliers provide options for hardware and software with varying capabilities
and cost.
Competition also arises when different groups target the same kind of application. Small
satellites are more suited for some applications than larger satellites if the goal is to carry a small
payload that has fewer requirements.

Commercial competition could arise in the future between different small or large satellites
providing the same service. A constellation of small satellites could offer a cheaper solution for
telecommunication services.
4.6 Regulators
Regulatory issues must be considered. There are plenty of international and national regulators,
such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), space agencies, national
administrations and national import and export control organizations.
For more information on regulatory issues please refer to Chapter 5.
4.7 Examples of Small Satellite Missions: Players
Table 4-2: Partners, sponsors, suppliers, and customers related to the four example missions
NigeriaSat BRITE
SwissCube ( Susan et al., 2010), ( Schwarzenberg-
Yubileiny
(Pike, 2011), Czerny, 2010), (SRC
(EPFL, 2009) (AMSAT, 2011)
(Kufoniyi,2004), PAS_a, 2010), (SRC
(SSTL, 2011) PAS_b, 2010)
Partners
The project International Cooperation Universities and
involved more then partnership through between Austria, research centers
180 students from the DMC Poland, Canada and from Russia
different consortium, universities in the
universities under allowing for respective countries
the supervision of combined national
the Space Center objectives,
EPFL humanitarian aid
and commerce
benefits
Sponsors
Educational Nigerian Austria: University The satellite was
institutes, government of Vienna and the developed, built
government, Austrian Research and launched at the
organizations, and Promotion Agency expenses of the
private companies (FFG) contracting
in Switzerland Poland: Ministry of companies of the
Science and Higher project
Education
Canada: Canadian
Space Agency

Suppliers
Suppliers form SSTL designed and Suppliers from Suppliers from
industry, such as built the NigeriaSat- industry such as, industry such as,
RUAG, EADS 1, NigeriaSat-2 and Routes NPP Geofizika-
Astrium, Centre NigeriaSat-X with Astroengineering, Cosmos Company,
Suisse the direct Sinclear Saturn Company,
dElectronique et participation of Interplanetary, Lavochkin NPO,
de Microtechnique, Nigerian specialists Peter Ceravolo Ramensk
Remote Intuitive SSTL has also Optic and others Instrument
Visual Operations, trained 35 Nigerian Testing facilities Building Company,
Oerlikon Space engineers and located at the State Space Agency
and others scientists in how to mission partners or of Ukraine (SSAU)
design and build all at external testing and others
satellite subsystems facilities Test-Integration-
Assemble: JSC
Information
Satellite Systems
Reshetnev
Company
Customers
Academia: NASRDA of TU Graz, Nicolaus Russian Federal
EPFL, Haute Ecole Nigeria Copernicus Space Agency
d'ingenerie et de Astronomical (FSA), Space
gestion du canton Centre (CAMK), Forces of Ministry
de vaud, University of of Defense and
Universitt Toronto Institute of Army, Air Force
Neuenburg, Haute Aerospace Studies and Navy
Ecole spcialise de Space Flight Assistance Society
Suisse occidentale Laboratory (UTIAS- (AAN AS)
(Siders), and others SFL)

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Legal Framework
5 LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Prior to establishing a small satellite program, it is imperative to understand the legal and
regulatory framework applicable to space activities so that the parties involved are aware of their
rights and obligations. These rights and obligations are imposed by space law, which has both
international law and national law aspects (Lyall and Larsen, 2009). On an international level,
space law includes the five United Nations Treaties and the United Nations Principles on space
law. On a national level, space law manifests differences within each domestic legal system (Lyall
and Larsen, 2009). Consequently, decision makers interested in developing space capabilities are
advised to clarify whether their state is a party to these treaties or not, and whether national
space law or other applicable laws exist. Ideally, all states engaging in space activities would be
party to these treaties. The status of the international agreements related to outer space activities
and the information on which states are party to each agreement are provided on the UNOOSA
website (United Nations_b, 2011).
International space law links space activities to states, since traditionally, the only space
participants were the states themselves. According to Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty
(OST), a state is internationally responsible for its national activities, whether such activities are
conducted by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities. Additionally, OST Article
VII, and Articles II and III of the Liability Convention impose liability on the state that launches
or procures the launching of a space object, or from whose territory or facility a space object is
launched. Liability may be applicable to nationals of the state even if they are conducting space
activities outside the states borders. Research on existing state legislation should begin with the
national space law database on the UNOOSA website (UNOOSA, 2011). According to this
database, to date only 20 states have adopted such laws. In case the state in question is not
included in this database, interested entities may contact their national Ministry or Agency
responsible for space law.
The analysis of the legal framework that follows will be divided into three stages: pre-launch,
launch, and in-orbit.
5.1 Pre-launch
5.1.1 Frequency Allocation
One of the first issues to be considered in the early stages of a small satellite program is the
allocation and coordination of radio frequencies. This requires administrative and technical
procedures that could take several years (up to five or seven years) and pose a major time
constraint if not scheduled accordingly (Bender, 1998). The ITU is the United Nations body
responsible for the coordination of the global use of the radio frequency spectrum (Leshner,
2011). The goal is to provide equitable and efficient access to the limited spectrum and orbit
resource (especially in GEO), and also to prevent signal interference and collisions (Bender,
1998).

Article 45 of the ITU Constitution defines harmful interference as any interference that
endangers the functioning of a radio navigation or other safety services, or seriously degrades,
obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radio communication service operating in accordance with
the ITU Regulations. The ITU legal regime, consisting of the Constitution, the Convention, and
the Radio Regulations is binding on the 192 ITU member states.
The International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) is responsible for maintaining the frequency
used for amateur radio operators and for coordinating the use of the radio spectrum for all
amateur operators (Lee et al., 2004). Amateur small satellite operators must apply for radio
spectrum allocation at the IARU.
There are two ways for allocating frequency of the telecommunications spectrum: the planning
approach and the coordination approach. The first exists only for Broadcasting Satellite Services
(BSS) and Fixed Satellite Services (FSS). This approach ensures efficient use of the spectrum
and operates on a first come first served basis. The coordination approach requires information
to be submitted by the national administration of a state. Only national administrations as
representatives of member states can request, either for their own benefit or on behalf of a
satellite operator, the use of frequencies to the ITU. National legislation deals with the
regulatory framework regarding the licensing of the operator and the relationship between the
operator and the administration.
The German Telecommunications Act and Administrative Order 8/2005 of the Federal
Network Agency illustrates in detail the process of acquiring and transferring orbit and
frequency usage rights, and will be used here as an example (Ley et al., 2008). The satellite
operator has to notify the Federal Network Agency of its intention to use satellite frequencies by
submitting an application that contains specific information on the satellite and its frequency
use. This application is made through the Space Notification System PC Capture (SpaceCap),
which is available on the ITU website. All the necessary data regarding the satellite, its
frequencies, and the related ground stations are combined in a database format and forwarded
to the Federal Network Agency.
Once the Agency receives the notification, it proceeds with the application for the orbit and
frequency to ITU. Afterwards, the ITU will transfer the orbit and frequency usage rights to the
state of Germany (Ley et al., 2008). The notification, as prepared through SpaceCap, must be
published as advanced publication information by the ITU. This publication will allow all other
ITU member states to be aware of the planned approaches and assess whether there might be
an interference with their satellite systems. Any states objecting to the usage of that specific
frequency may file an appeal to the ITU. The information of the planned approach must remain
available for at least six months before the ITU can issue the coordination request. If there are
objections, then these are forwarded to the Federal Agency, which is in charge of coordinating
with the objecting states; then the same process is repeated with the ITU. This process could
last several months or even years.

Once the international coordination process is completed, the ITU grants the frequency usage
to the state of Germany. After this point, all ITU member states are obliged to respect this
frequency as allocated by the Union. Afterwards, the operator must file an application to the
Agency, at least three months before the scheduled launch, requesting the transfer of the usage
of these rights. The Agency must be informed of any delay in the launch as well as of the
outcome of the successful launch and the orbiting parameters. The satellite operator retains
usage rights over these frequencies only throughout the expected lifetime of the satellite, and
not beyond. Consequently, with regard to the frequency allocation, any company, satellite
operator, or research institute must file an application to the administration of the ITU member
state in which their organization is headquartered (or where they are operating).
5.1.2 Registration of Space Objects
Another important legal issue that requires the attention of entities interested in starting a small
satellite program is the registration of space objects. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty
refers to registration as the necessary link for jurisdiction and control (see Section 5.3.1,
Jurisdiction and Ownership). The legal obligation to register any space object launched into
outer space is clearly imposed on the launching state through Article II of the Convention on
Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (hereafter: Registration Convention)
(Diederiks-Verschoor and Kopal, 2008). According to Articles II, III and IV of the same
Convention, launching states will on the one hand maintain an appropriate national registry of
space objects they have launched and, on the other hand, furnish specific information regarding
each space object to the Register maintained by the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Even if the launching state has not ratified either of these Treaties, it is not relieved of the
obligation to register its space objects. In 1961, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
Resolution 1721 B (XVI) on international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space
(United Nations_a, 2011), which is applicable to member states of the United Nations,
regardless of whether or not they have ratified the United Nations Space Treaties. Pursuant to
the provisions of this resolution, states launching space objects into orbit or beyond are
requested to provide information on these objects promptly to the United Nations, and the
Secretary General of the United Nations is requested to maintain a public register for such
information (Wickramatunga, 1991). Consequently, the launching state - even if not a party to
the space treaties - must still provide information about its space objects launched into outer
space to the United Nations.
With regard to the timeline of the required actions, the creation of a national registry must be
considered as early as possible due to the possibly lengthy procedure of enacting the relevant
legislation and completing any administrative process. For the registries to be effective, the
information must be provided to the appropriate registries, as soon as practically possible after
launch. Regretfully, in practice there is an average delay of two to three months between the
launch of a space object and its registration because some states tend to register their space
objects in groups (Wickramatunga, 1991).
Examples of registration information provided by launching states both according to the

Registration Convention and the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1721 B (XVI)
can be found on the UNOOSA website (United Nations_a, 2011).

5.1.3 Domestic Law Considerations
Applicable domestic laws of the launching state must be considered prior to launch. Domestic
laws could vary greatly; therefore, each entity must consider its countrys applicable laws.
First, it is important to clarify whether the laws of the state of the intended launch require an
operating license and the specific requirements to obtain such a license. Furthermore, before
signing an insurance contract, the satellite operator needs to know whether such a contract is
required by law and, if so, what should be covered by such a contract, whether that may be
insurance only for the satellite or for third party liability. Additionally, it is important to be aware
of any technology transfer limitations that may be imposed by national laws. Limitations in the
technology that can be used, and export control constraints should be considered at the start of
the program so that the development of the program can continue without technological
obstacles. International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) is an example of very restrictive
export control legislation that poses obstacles in the use of United States technological
equipment for foreign space projects.
5.2 Launch
During the launch phase, the major legal concern for satellite operators is liability in case of
damage caused by the space object. Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty provides that the
launching state is liable, even if the launch is procured or undertaken by a states nationals rather
than by the state itself. According to Article II of the Liability Convention, the launching state is
absolutely liable to pay compensation for any damage caused by its space object on the surface
of the Earth or to aircraft in flight. Article VI of the Liability Convention provides that the
launching state can be exonerated from absolute liability to the extent that it proves that the
damage was caused either wholly or partially from gross negligence; or from act or omission
done with intent to cause damage on the part of a claimant state or its natural or juridical
persons.
The concept of absolute liability means that the launching state will have to pay compensation
irrespective of the existence of fault or the degree of compliance with the required standards of
care (Hurwitz, 1992; Jenks, 1966). This regime does not provide balance between the launching
state and private satellite operators, because the state will have to pay compensation even if the
fault is only that of the private operator. Consequently, domestic space legislation is of utmost
importance to regulate the involvement of non-governmental entities in space activities (United
Nations, 2005). Through national laws, the launching state can protect itself from paying
compensation for damage caused by the activities of private entities. Liability can be imposed on
the private operator on an absolute basis or on the basis of fault, either for the whole amount
due or for a capped amount, and the state can cover the remaining amount.

Anyone interested in developing a small satellite program must be aware of the provisions of
national laws on liability for damage caused by space objects on the surface of the Earth or to
aircraft in flight. If national law imposes liability on private entities, these entities should
consider the possibility of insurance, even if it is not required by the law. If a satellite operator is
required to pay compensation for damage, part of that compensation may be covered by
insurance, depending on the specific contract clauses (Hurwitz, 1992; Goldie, 1965).
5.3 In-Orbit
5.3.1 Jurisdiction and Ownership
Jurisdictional issues primarily arise out of the launch and operation of a satellite. Article VIII of
the Outer Space Treaty specifically stipulates that the state on whose registry a space object is
launched shall retain jurisdiction and control over this object and any personnel thereof, while in
outer space or on a celestial body. Consequently, the satellite is under the jurisdiction and
control of the state that has registered it and is subject to the domestic laws of that state
(Bender, 1998). Additionally, as provided in the same Article, ownership of space objects is not
affected by their presence in outer space. Such objects remain under the ownership of the state
that has registered them; therefore, the state that has registered a satellite in its own national
registry and in the United Nations register retains jurisdiction and control over it.
5.3.2 Liability
Damage caused by an orbiting satellite to another space object, or person, or property on board
is regulated by Article III of the Liability Convention. The launching state is liable only if such
damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible. Contrary to liability
for damage on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight, the drafters of the Liability
Convention decided to place the parties involved with collisions between space objects in a
position of equality (Diederiks-Verschoor and Kopal, 2008). Thus, fault-based liability was
chosen in order to serve that purpose, since both launching states are involved in space
activities, have accepted the ultra-hazardous nature of such activities, and have assumed the risks
involved (Diederiks-Verschoor and Kopal, 2008). Therefore, the launching state of the space
object that caused the damage to another space object shall be required to compensate only
upon proof of fault, although part of the compensation may be covered under the launching
states insurance contract.
5.3.3 End of Life
Finally, Article XI of the Outer Space Treaty addresses the issue of protecting the space
environment. States are required to conduct exploration of outer space and celestial bodies so as
to avoid their harmful contamination and also prevent adverse changes in the environment of
the Earth. Also, they must conduct space activities with due regard to the corresponding
interests of all other states. Consequently, states that are launching small satellites must refrain
from creating space debris, which constitutes a potential hazard to the safe conduct of space
activities by other states (Lyall and Larsen, 2009).

Any satellite that has reached the end of its life span and is no longer operational is considered
to be space debris and, therefore a potential danger, as it may collide with operational satellites,
orbiting manned space stations, or astronauts.
Also, debris poses a threat to the Earth because it may uncontrollably re-enter the atmosphere
and cause severe damage to the surface of the Earth, depending on its size and velocity (Lyall
and Larsen, 2009). Objects with a diameter of approximately 10 centimeters or more can be
tracked in order to avoid collision. At present, the US Department of Defense (DoD) has
catalogued more than 15,000 objects, but there are millions of smaller objects that cannot be
tracked and can pose risk to space missions. Consequently, states must conform to the existing
international regime on space debris and assume all necessary measures to avoid the creation of
space debris.
The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has endorsed space debris mitigation
guidelines (United Nations, 2007). They are based on guidelines developed by the Inter-Agency
Space Debris Coordination (IADC) Committee (IADC, 2007).
Regarding the end of life of a satellite, both aforementioned guidelines identify passivation of
the space object as the most effective mitigation measure (United Nations, 2007 [Guideline 5];
IADC Guidelines par. 3.4.1). Passivation requires the removal of all forms of stored energy,
including residual propellants and compressed fluids, and the discharge of electrical storage
devices. (United Nations, 2010) Additionally, the space objects that have terminated their
operational phases in orbit that pass through the LEO region should be removed in a controlled
fashion (United Nations, 2007 [Guideline 6]). If that is not possible, they should be disposed in
orbits that avoid their long-term presence in the LEO region, so that the possibility of collision
is less (United Nations, 2007 [Guideline 6]). The same rule applies to space objects operating in
GEO (United Nations, 2007 [Guideline 7]). Satellite operators should ensure that by the end of
the operational life of a satellite they have enough energy stored to perform the transfer into a
safer orbit and passivation. Neither international law nor the United Nations guidelines specify a
limit on the time a satellite can remain in orbit. The IADC guidelines, however, provide that 25
years is a reasonable and appropriate in orbit lifetime limit, and operators should comply with
them (IADC, 2007; Space Security 2011). For more information on the technical details of the
different options regarding the end of a satellites operational life, please refer to Chapter 7.

Table 5-1: Basic steps checklist

Steps Actions to begin with References Remarks
Check International Obligations relevant to Small Satellites
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/en/
Outer Space Treaty
SpaceLaw/outerspt.html Check if the state is
Registration http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/en/ party or not
Convention SORegister/regist.html
General Assembly
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/Spac Applicable in case
Resolution 1721b
eLaw/gares/html/gares_16_1721.html state is not party to
(XVI)
the Outer Space
1 General Assembly http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/
Treaty and/or the
Resolution 62/101 gares/index.html
Registration
General Assembly http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/
Convention
Resolution 59/115 gares/index.html
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/en/ Check if the state is
Liability Convention
SpaceLaw/liability.html party or not
ITU Convention,
http://www.itu.int/net/about/basic-
Constitution & -
texts/index.aspx
Regulations
Check national framework relevant to Small Satellites
Check for updates
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/en/ and relevance
National Space Law
2 SpaceLaw/national/index.html through other
sources internally
Check with relevant
National Space Policy -
national authorities
Adopt necessary/applicable Procedures
Refer to national
Licensing -
rules and obligations
For amateur frequencies: Refer to international
3 Frequency Allocation http://www.iaru.org regulations and
For other frequencies: http://www.itu.int national law
Refer to international
Registration -
and national law
Insurance - Refer to national law

5.4 Examples of Small Satellite Missions: Legal Issues
Table 5-2: Legal issues related to the four sample missions

SwissCube NigeriaSat BRITE Yubileiny
(UNOOSA 2, 2011) (Obiechina, 2003) (Wolski, 2010) (Moiseev, 2011)
(ITU, 2011) (UNOOSA 2, 2011) (ITU, 2011) (UNOOSA 2, 2011)
Swiss Air & Space National Space Austrian Ministry of Federal Law "About
Law Association Research and Transport, Space activities"
UN Registration: Development Innovation and UN Registration:
Not registered, as of Agency (NASRDA) Technology, Registered
1 September, 2011 Contract with SSTL Aeronautics and Registration
Space Agency Document:
ITU registered: BR UN Registration:
IFIC: 2604 NigeriaSat-1 Poland: No space ST/SG/SER.E/550
Registered law, no space
Registration registry, no
Document: registration of space
A/AC.105/INF.411 objects
UN Registration: Industry Canada for
NigeriaSat-X not frequency allocation
registered, as of 1 and coordination
September, 2011 UN Registration:
Not launched as of
September, 2011
ITU application (in
process): BR IFIC:
2701

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Policy and Program Concept Development
6 POLICY AND PROGRAM CONCEPT

DEVELOPMENT
National and international policies often shape the space program environment in which space
programs exist. Policies often drive the rationale, motivations and trends that affect how space
programs are conceived and developed. First, this chapter will explore the effect of policy on
rationales. Next, the chapter outlines how the Rationales and Benefits (Chapter 2), Trends and
Applications (Chapter 3), Players and their Roles (Chapter 4) and the Legal Framework (Chapter
5) serve as key elements that establish a foundation for developing a small satellite program
concept. From a program-level concept using policies and mission statements as tools to define
clearly the mission, the rationale of using a small satellite can be evaluated and refined into a
mission concept.
Figure 6-1: Various elements affected by small satellite programs
6.1 National and International Policy
Pre-existing policies on international and national levels often affect the framework and the
strategy of programs. This section describes three different levels of policy with examples that
point out the complexity introduced by policies. The key point is to understand how pre-
existing policies add context to rationales, which are essential for developing a program concept.
Sadeh provides a general, not necessarily governmental context by defining that policy consists
of two elements: the evolutionary process of policy-making and the path of necessary actions in
order to achieve the rationales. Related to space policy, the affected areas include for instance
the environment, law, emergence of privatization and commercialization, international
cooperation and national security (Sadeh, 2002). The process of creating policy is slow, as it is
influenced by historical circumstances, social changes and even administrative procedures
(Birkland, 2011).

Besides the government, the public is also involved in the evolution of policy by supporting
personal opinions and reacting for or against issues that affect them (Birkland, 2011).
The space policy outline of the European Union (EU) details the priorities at an international
level. The European space policy sets the path of actions for the EU to achieve its objectives
and sets out a long-term plan following the Europe 2020 strategy for economic and sustainable
growth (European Commission_a, 2011). This policy establishes a framework at the EU level,
which can be found in essence in Towards a space strategy for the EU that benefits its
citizens (European Commission_b, 2011). In addition, some EU member states have their own
national space policies, which are not always completely aligned with the European space policy.
The objectives of the European space policy are defined as follows: improve technological and
scientific development, enhance competitiveness and innovation in the space industry, trigger
economic growth with the creation of new products and more job opportunities, use space
applications for the improvement of everyday life through the use of applications concerning
climate change, public security, transport and humanitarian aid, and confirm the role of Europe
on the international space sector (European Commission_a, 2011).
Estonia is a good example of how such international policies can have a significant impact on
other players. Seeking to solidify their entrance into the European space community, Estonia
signed the first cooperative agreement with the European Space Agency in June 2007 (ESA
Space for Europe, 2011) and a five year Plan for European Cooperating State agreement with
ESA in November of 2009 (ESA_b, 2011). It is hoped that this will eventually lead Estonia to
the status of full membership within ESA (Vrolijk, 2011), with broader access to all areas of
space (Estonian Space Office, 2011). Several national beneficiaries of collaborative space
activities were identified and responsibilities were distributed between different ministries
(Estonian Space Office, 2011): safety and security, environment and health, transport and
logistics, agriculture and forestry, and education and research. The Space Affairs Council was
formed under the Ministry of Education and Research, to coordinate the needs of its members.
The Estonian space policy was drafted based on the Space Affairs Council's direction,
international and European principles, as well as key European space policy documents like
Towards a Space Strategy for the EU that Benefits its Citizens. This policy fulfills the
following objectives (Estonian Space Office, 2011):
implement space applications that support achieving of strategic objectives important to

the state and are in accordance with the business potential of the enterprises and the
needs of the citizens,
motivate cooperation between the Estonian high technology sector and science to
develop new services and applications for achieving sustainable growth in the economy
and quality of life,
increase the level of awareness of the public sector regarding modern space applications
in order to be a driving force in the introduction of services offered to citizens,
complement Estonias achievements in space science, and
provide inspiration and promote interest in the natural sciences and technology,
information and communication technology and innovative business, as well as creation
of synergy between these fields.

This led to the adoption of a vision of the Estonian space industry by 2020 consisting of
technological, societal and business objectives (Estonian Space Office, 2011). These objectives
range from issues such as efficient use of satellite data in public services, achieving an
internationally recognized level of space science, to increasing Estonian business and
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) capabilities in the space sector.
Many definitions and statements about policy involve only the governmental and institutional
perspective, but it is also important to consider international organizations, universities, research
institutes, and industry. Therefore, while drafting a national space policy, each state should be
aware of the different stakeholders (Schrogl, 2008).
6.2 Program Concept
The landscape of the space community can be further understood by using analytical models
and techniques such as Situation Analysis, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
(SWOT) analysis, Political, Economical, Social, and Technical (PEST) analysis, and Socio-
cultural, Technological, Economical, Ecological, and Regulatory (STEER) analysis. These
models utilize the elements of the space landscape as inputs. The elements, as described in
Chapters 2 through 6.1, include the players and their role, their rationales, the benefits of space
programs, trends and applications, legal framework, and pre-existing policies. Results from such
models facilitate an understanding of where in the landscape an organization can best take its
place, whether it is government, academia, industry, or NPOs. Once a thorough analysis is
performed, a program concept should emerge. Many different analytical models could be used.
Standard models and techniques exist within industry. Details of these methods are beyond the
scope of this document. For further information, consult current literature.
For example, it can be seen how chapters 2 through 6 map to a sample model such as Situation
Analysis or the 5 Cs, which stand for Company (or organization as it is more appropriate for
the purpose of this guidebook), Customers (or end-users), Competitors, Collaborators, and
Context. These elements are presented in this guidebook in the following manner (Table 6-1):
As seen in Figure 6-2, the 5 Cs method can be used to provide an overall picture of the
landscape, and answers regarding ones role within this landscape. At this point, the program
concept should be emerging.

Table 6-1: Space landscape relation to the 5 Cs

5 Cs Definition in this guidebook Found in
Company Academia, industry, NPOs, and government Chapter 2
For government, customers are members of the public
For academia, their customer is the university
(students, faculty)
Customers Chapter 4
For industry, paying customers often include
government. For NPOs, the customers are themselves
or the general public
Current and potential organizations undertaking similar
Competitors Chapter 4
activities and other competing technologies and sectors
Chapter 4,
Collaborators Suppliers, partners, investors, regulators
Chapter 5
Chapter 3,
Market and technology trends, enabling factors, PEST
Context Chapter 5,
environment and factors, regulatory factors, policies
Chapter 6
Figure 6-2: 5 Cs approach to examining the space landscape
The Norwegian Automatic Identification System Satellite (AISSat-1) is an interesting case study
exemplifying the key elements of the landscape, and how they pertain to the program concept.
Norway is a relatively small country but it has a maritime area seven times larger than its
terrestrial area. This maritime area is the source of a significant amount of Norways resources
like oil, gas, and fish. Due to the challenging task of patrolling these waters and the increased
levels of hazardous cargo transports, as well as smuggling and terror activities, the Norwegian
government identified a need to improve maritime situational awareness and surveillance
capability in the High North and along the coast.
The vision of the Norwegian Space Center (NSC) is, By 2015 Norway is the country in the
world having the most use-value advantages of Space. The statement can be considered a
reflection of the cost effective and use-value policy of the Norwegian government, saying that
the principal aim is not to build a space industry but rather to attain national goals and to have
cost-efficient coverage of important societal- and user needs. (NSC, 2011).

The benefits of the small satellite initiative include improving resource management and
maritime traffic, protecting the marine environment, enhancing the safety for the maritime
industry by strengthening search and rescue services, and increasing national security.
Alternatively, the rationale is to secure a good role for the Norwegian industry in the field of
Automatic Identification System (AIS) satellites for the future, in accordance with the NSC
principal goals to create 10% annual growth in the space sector, meet national user needs, attain
a leading position in space research and to maintain a leading role in space-related ground
infrastructure (Milsom, 2008; Narheim and Olsen, 2011; Eriksen et al., 2010).
The application-related goal of AISSat-1 is to demonstrate the technological possibilities of

receiving signals in the northernmost waters, thus meeting the rationales of the Norwegian
government. The program has made use of a Generic Nanosatellite Bus (GNB) satellite
developed originally for BRITE by the Canadian University of Toronto Space Flight Laboratory
(UTIAS/SFL). The satellite was manufactured, tested and prepared for flight in Toronto: a
solution that was carefully investigated to be the lowest cost satellite available for the AISSat-1
mission. (Narheim and Olsen, 2011).
The total budget of the AISSat-1satellite is approximately 4.9 million Euro as of 2011. It weighs
approximately 6 kilograms and was launched by an Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)
in 2010. Norway is not a member of the EU, however it is a full member of the ESA. The use
of an Indian launcher somewhat contradicts the overall policy of ESA: to grant preference to
European launch vehicles. However, no European launch vehicle was well-suited at the time to
launch the small satellite into polar orbit and the Indian commercial PSLV came out as the best
option.
AISSat-1 is a joint venture between The Norwegian Defense Research Establishment (FFI) on
the military side, the Norwegian electronics manufacturer Kongsberg Seatex and Kongsberg
Satellite Services on the industrial side. It is owned and funded by the national space agency, the
NSC, which is organized as a government agency under the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
The data are shared by operational military headquarters and the Norwegian Coastal
Administration, who may distribute the data to other governmental or non-governmental users
such as the Directorate of Fisheries and the Coastguard (NSC, 2011).
Another example of how the data can be distributed purposefully happened in March 2011,
when AISSat-1 data was offered to Japan - Japan Aerospace exploration Agency (JAXA) and the
Japanese Coast Guard - by the Norwegian Coastal Administration. After the earthquake and the
follow-up catastrophic Tsunami, the AISSat-1 steering committee decided to re-program the
satellite so that it could be of use in the vicinity of the areas where the disaster struck (Aasen,
2011).
Together with the plans for the AISSat-1, an associated ground station was established at
Spitsbergen in Norway. A mission Control Centre was built at FFI to operate the satellite and to
control its state of health. These new centers provide the Norwegian space industry with the
opportunities to enhance itself in global environmental research and to strengthen its role as a
vital member of ESA and a leader in international research (Narheim and Olsen, 2011). These
establishments have further led to a national long-term goal of having a leading roll in the
development and operation of space related ground infrastructure.

Another capability building element and spin-off activity of this mission was the student satellite
Norwegian CUBEsat (NCUBE) which was developed at the Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU) using the standard CubeSat format, carrying an AIS receiver as its
primary payload that is used to track reindeer. The AIS NCUBE (aptly named Rudolf) ended
without having a successful flight; however, approximately 100 students from four different
universities participated in the development and construction of the satellite (Eriksen, et al.,
2006). Know-how and expertise was granted and transferred from several research institutes
such as the FFI (program manager for AISSat-1) and the Norwegian Institute for Energy
Technology (Kringen, 2004; Norsk Romseter, 2003).
Due to the success of the mission, ESA (Norway is a full member) has engaged FFI and
Norwegian industry to make case studies on AIS satellite solutions for Europe. AISSat-2 is
currently being built to take Norway one step closer to a more operational system with increased
capacity and enhanced reliability and is still being funded at a national level (Narheim and Olsen,
2011).
The examples above demonstrate how the policy environment, current trends and interests of
key stakeholders combine with legal issues to motivate the development of small satellite
programs for the benefit of society. The challenge for decision makers that are trying to
establish a small satellite program is to find the right combination of environment, trends, and
stakeholder interests to form a rationale that supports the necessary resources.
6.3 Refining to a Mission Concept
Once a program concept is determined and all the rationales are considered, the refinement into
an actual mission concept is the next step. Mission design is the process of creating an end-to-
end plan for the space mission. The satellite, however, is only one part of the design. All of the
elements need to be included: organizational and program structure, payload, S/C,
transportation system, orbit and flight mechanics, mission operations, launch, and insurance.
(Connolly, 2011). Comprehensive reference books, such as Space Mission Analysis and Design
(Wertz, 1993), guide the mission designer through the different procedures. In addition, several
software applications exist for computer assistance in designing the mission. Most of the
software packages are fee-based commercial products, such as Satellite Tool Kit (STK) or
FreeFlyer, but there are open-source alternatives, such as General Mission Analysis Tool
(GMAT).
The mission design loop includes mission statement, mission requirements, mission element
options, evaluation, and selection.
The first step in planning a small satellite mission is to define the expected outcome of the
mission. This is done through the mission statement which should describe the core purpose of
the mission. A space mission with a primary objective of training engineers and gaining space
capability will have a simple mission statement, while the statement will grow in complexity for
more involved applications.

For example, the mission statement of AMSAT states that this United States-based non-profit
volunteer organization designs, builds and operates experimental satellites and promotes space
education (AMSAT, 2010). At this level, defining or refining policies can also help to provide a
framework for the concept evaluation process that lies ahead.
The second stage of the mission design process is to identify mission requirements. This is done
in a top-down fashion in which broad top-level requirements are defined first, from which the
lower-level requirements will flow. Requirements use formal language to state the function of a
system and should not impose a solution; rather, requirements state what is necessary to achieve
a particular objective. Requirements should be stated clearly and should be phrased such that
they can be verified. For example, a simple repeater satellite may have an orbital requirement
that states the satellite shall pass over a particular ground station at a given interval.
Based on the mission requirements, options can be identified for each element of the mission:
ground segment, space segment (S/C bus), launch segment, orbit (possibly constellation),
mission operation, and the command, control, and communication architecture (Wertz and
Larson, 1993).
All of the options that meet the mission objective must be evaluated based on the defined
mission requirements (for example, cost, schedule, performance, and risk). The mission
requirements and drivers will help define the relative importance of each metric. At the end of
the evaluation process, one mission concept will be most suited to the defined mission
statement. The selected mission concept must be compared with the original mission statement
to see if it meets all of the requirements and objectives. If the mission concept does not meet
these defined needs, further iterations are performed until the requirements are met.
Chapter 7 discusses mission elements spanning the entire mission life cycle. The main
considerations for trade-offs, best practices, and some of the lesson learned from other missions
will be provided to help put future mission concepts into perspective.


Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Mission and Program Execution
7 MISSION AND PROGRAM EXECUTION
This chapter focuses on how to implement the concepts that were introduced in previous
chapters. Emphasis is given on concept integration using the small satellite design philosophy:
inexpensive, rapid, and less complex. Examples are given of how previous small satellite
programs have implemented these steps. All the concepts are presented at a programmatic level
as if the reader were about to start a small satellite program with no existing framework and
guidelines in place.
An overview of organization structure and project management techniques tailored to small

satellite programs is presented. The techniques are supported by examples of small satellite
projects. The cost management section then advises on cost saving techniques and highlights
methods for monitoring costs. Mission architecture and design is presented from the segments
perspective, namely space, ground, and user segments, as well as their interfaces. The mission
phases are also presented in this chapter and include launch, commissioning, operation, and end
of life. Following the mission phases, the necessary infrastructure and test facilities are
introduced, from manufacturing to launch, with a commentary on their development.
7.1 Organization Structure and Project Management
Once a decision has been taken to implement a small satellite program, an organizational
structure needs to be put into place. Care must be taken to ensure that the structure matches the
scale of the project and that it is not too large as to induce unproductive behavior nor too small
to be inadequate for organizing the team. Program and project management should be planned
and introduced in the early stages of the program to ensure that the mission concept will be
realized. Various organizational techniques are available. The choice of technique depends on
the type of organization and mission. Examples are provided to highlight some of the unique
considerations for organizing personnel within the small satellite project. More information
about these examples and additional case studies are provided in Table 7-1.
7.1.1 Organizational Structure
An organizational structure is essential for efficient task allocation and coordination, and for
personnel management. For entities new to space program development, a simple structure to
incorporate minimum specialization of human resources is typically used. Personnel should be
proficient in both design and construction skills. As the organization grows, a different structure
with more formality may be required. There are many books that describe organizational
structures, such as Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process (Miles and Snow, 2003).

An example of an organizational structure for a student small satellite project is the STUDSAT
project. This Indian project is a collaboration of seven engineering colleges in which one college
acts as the lead coordinator and one elected individual acts as the prime representative of the
group. This is a flexible team structure which allows students from different disciplines and
locations to be involved in the design, development, and management activities (STUDSAT,
2010).
In the case of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), an organization-wide matrix
structure is used. As an established organization, ISRO includes its small satellite program into
the existing structure. For a given project, a representative from each required functional area is
identified. Reports are sent to a single project director from the project management team. This
director is responsible for realizing the mission and ensuring its success (ISRO, 2008).
7.1.2 Project Management
Project management is essential for allocating resources, coordinating team members, as well as
monitoring and controlling scope, schedule, and cost. Some key elements of project
management in the space industry include using a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and
scheduling using Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), Critical Path Method
(CPM), and GANTT charts. Further information on these topics is available from A Guide to
the Project Management Body of Knowledge (Project Management Institute, 2008) and A
Management Guide to PERT/CPM: with GERT/PDM/DCPM and other networks (Wiest
and Levy, 1977).
Project management is typically complex for traditional, large space projects and results in high
resource requirements. One of the primary advantages of a small satellite project is being able to
create a mission using minimal resources. For small satellites, the trend is a smaller management
team that uses simple management techniques. The project management of the STUDSAT team
was very simple, yet functional. One person was placed in charge of each of the following areas:
schedule management, financial management, and technical management (STUDSAT, 2010).
This simple structure allows for flexible schedule and task assignments, something that a student
team requires.
The management of the IMS-1 satellite, the first in a series of Indian Miniaturized Satellites
(IMS), uses a project director from a centralized project management team. The director is in
charge of scheduling and coordinating functional departments, as well as monitoring and
controlling the scope, scheduling, and costing of the project (ISRO, 2008). The smaller the
project management team, the more the burden of cost and human resources is minimized. In
the case of multiple projects that are undertaken by one organization, a dedicated team may be
formed using personnel from existing projects within the organization to overcome human
resource limitations.
7.1.3 Project Control and Monitoring
Project control and monitoring addresses issues related to scope, performance, cost and
schedule. Once the mission configuration is finalized, changes should be prevented through
continuous monitoring and control to remain within the project schedule and budget. A
schedule overrun can also result from factors such as delays in the launch manifest or in
deliveries.

Cost overruns may result from an under estimation of finances, occurrence of a schedule
overrun, or scope overrun. Traditional evaluation techniques are based on the following
independent parameters: schedule, configuration, and budget monitoring and control. Deems
(2007) identifies and provides specific solutions to common problems in academic programs in
which students take leadership roles.
Students at universities have a culture of risk taking and lack sufficient risk management skills.
Transferring experience and lessons learned in a project from one to the next generation of
students can be problematic (DEEMS, 2007). Recognizing these problems is a first step to
finding a solution, which is necessary for the establishment of an effective and efficient small
satellite program.
7.1.4 Marketing Strategy and Management
Although marketing strategies and plans are often used in the private sector, they are also
applicable to non-commercial organizations, including those within the space sector. Marketing
is an integral consideration for program funding, be it through private sources, banks,
government grants, or loans. Decision makers in industry, academia, and government who are
considering developing space capabilities using a small satellite program should develop
advocacy strategies early in the program. Even amateur groups, like AMSAT, benefit from
strategic marketing, for example, the organization seeks sponsorship donations, solicits
volunteers, and promotes its cause to the public. For additional details on marketing analysis
techniques, see Marketing: An Introduction (Armstrong et al., 2009).
As described in Chapter 4, many types of collaborators play a significant role in the

development of an organizations or countrys space capabilities. All of them have different
needs and thus require different means of communication. For example, SwissCube is a
university small satellite project that has a simple, easy to navigate, and professional website
providing relevant information, including extensive documentation for its various stakeholders.
A small organization considering a small satellite program may not have the budget to employ a
dedicated marketing manager and may chose to outsource certain marketing activities, for
example, the development of their brochures or website. Recently, faster and more economical
means of marketing have become available through online tools. For example, blogs and social
media can be used for promotion, demonstrating expertise, and networking (Ghadaki, 2011).
There are also online tools for public relations that offer more economical alternatives to
traditional public relations, as well as online survey tools that organizations can leverage to
measure success.
7.1.5 Human Resource Management
Contrary to traditional satellite programs, the human resource requirements for a small satellite
program are considerably less. Academia is generally involved in pico-satellites (less than 1 kg)
and nano-satellites (1 to 10 kg) and requires less human resources since the mission concepts
and time scales for these projects tend to be lower. The projects are scheduled to match
academic time lines and provide an ideal educational experience for a student involved in the
full project life cycle during a graduate degree.

The BRITE-Austria/TUGSAT-1 satellite includes between five and ten staff members and on
average, three students per six-month semester (Romano, 2011). By comparison, a relatively
large number of personnel work on small satellite projects at ISRO. Permanent staff from a
variety of disciplines performs research and development activities in concert with external
contractors. At ISRO the mission concepts tend to use small satellites as technology
demonstrators so the satellites are larger and more complex than satellites like BRITE-Austria/
TUGSAT-1 (ISRO, 2008).
Personnel training and development is an ongoing process within an organization in order to

sustain and enhance personnel skills. Customized in-house training programs can be developed
by a human resources department or can be brought to the organization as needed from third
party training companies. For example, Satrec Initiative, Berlin Space Technology (BST)
program, and SSTL offer training programs specifically to meet customer needs. The BST
student training program provides lectures, practical exercises, and hands-on projects in which
the student learns how to select the right components, perform general design activities, and
define a mission concept (Buhl et al., 2011).
The number of personnel and level of expertise required depends largely on the mission and
complexity involved. If the team is small and the individual expertise is wider, then more
flexibility may be required. In contrast, the larger the team with a more complex mission, the
higher the advantage of dedicated expert teams with concentrated development tasks. Hence a
combination of both internal and external experts as well as partnership, student participation
and other forms of collaboration can be exercised depending on the mission complexity.
7.1.6 Documentation
Documentation requirements for small satellite projects are generally less complicated when
compared to larger satellite projects. Documentation helps to ensure that the satellite
configuration is monitored and also to inform all team members of the project status. For
academia, often reports and thesis provide much of the documentation. The BRITE-
Austria/TUGSAT-1 project uses two types of documentation: internal and external. The
internal documentation includes project reports, test procedures, system and subsystem reports,
and minutes of meetings. Reports for external agencies are prepared in conformity to the
European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) (Romano, 2011). Documentation
requirements that call for compliance with certain standards may result in increased program
and project cost due to needed training, additional preparation time, and additional material
required. Good judgment of these documents is required. In addition, a specialized application
called the open concurrent design server (OCDS) exists that has been developed by ESA.
Organizations like SwissCube use this data management server to aid in the design and
development phases of their project (EPFL, 2009).
7.2 Managing Costs
Cost management skills are required on all projects. It is difficult to estimate life cycle costs and
Reducing space mission cost is hard even if we know what the real costs are, and virtually
impossible if we do not (Wertz and Larson, 1996). Within this section comprehensive
description of the principles of project costing, budgeting specifics for small satellite programs,
and relevant information on insurance requirements are provided.

Class of Organizational
Project Entities Project Management Human Resources Documentation Remarks
Satellite Structure
Seven Pico Team structure Project Management 45 students Project thesis Since the mission
engineering (0.85 kg) with one team (1 person), Finance life is short (6
STUDSAT colleges in coordinator or Management (1 person), months), fewer
(STUDSAT, India point of contact Technical Management personnel are
2010) (1 person) under the required during
guidance of institute the mission
management and operation phase
mentors
UTIAS / Nano No formal Prime representative of Part time researchers, Spreadsheet with -
COM DEV (6.5 kg) structure details COMDEV and UTIAS Full time systems procurement and
International Space University, SSP 2011

NTS S/C Ltd. available meet for daily and weekly engineers for payload status design
(Cain et al., reviews development.
2008; For a period of 7
Pranajaya et months
al., 2009)
ISRO Micro Matrix Structure; Centralized dedicated Relatively large number Project report, Personnel
(83 kgs) one project Project Management of personnel deployed configuration required for
director and other team, Earned Valued (including engineers, documents, review mission operation
project executives Method (EVM) as diploma candidates, documents, phase (2 years)
from different practiced and not as technicians and other minutes of the also included. As
functional policy administrative staff) meeting, compared to
Table 7-1: Organizational and management details of small satellite projects
IMS-1 subsystem areas There is a mix of both engineering STUDSAT

(ISRO, 2008) Project Management internal staff and drawings database number of
Team monitors and contract personnel personnel
controls project hired for a specific required is due to
performance, schedule period and activity. complex
and cost and budget development
activities.
45
Mission and Program Execution
7.2.1 Project Costing
Space projects are not substantially different from other business endeavors. Project managers
must deal with all aspects of the project, team and stakeholders in order to plan the project,
estimate cost and establish a budget profile. Project managers do not analyze cost, but they are
integral to the process. Exact cost analyses take place in the project life cycle and it is crucial to
involve experts from all elements of the project (Boden and Larson, 1996).
Project Phases
In the project planning and budgeting phase it is very important to envision and focus on all
project phases listed below. There are typically seven different phases in the development of
space projects (Larson et al., 2009):
Figure 7-1: Project phases
Changes in goals, objectives, and requirements will typically increase cost. Changes that occur
later in the life cycle will typically increase cost even more than early changes. This is why it is
beneficial to make proper studies during Phase 0 to determine initial project life cycle costs
(Larson et al, 2009).
Process for Determining Life Cycle Costs
Estimating costs over a project life cycle is difficult but necessary in order to envision all project
phases from a budgeting point of view as well as to engage all relevant people in the project and
test their ability of working as a group. The project life cycle costs for a small satellite project
must match the available funding, which may come from different sources (design-to-cost).
Since funding is usually limited, many small satellite projects try to find volunteers, amateur
groups, or in case of academia students and researchers to contribute to their work force
(Segert, 2011). Below is a description of the typical steps taken in order to determine the life
cycle costs of a space program:
1. Defining program scope and content. This element of the small satellite program life
cycle enables the objectives of the stakeholders and the project team to be defined.
There can also be objectives that put the choice of payload as a secondary objective.
This means that the primary objective will include the training of national engineers,
raising reputation of a technology sector in a particular country, launching new, and
non-existent services to the market and collecting scientific data.

2. Gathering data and models. This is the step where most of the background data is
gathered and many scenarios are considered for making further decisions. At this point,
all main cost drivers should be taken into account. For example, facilities, costs of
human resources, hardware, software, examples from analogous programs, and cost of
data. In addition, marketing and promotion activities should be taken into
consideration. For instance, in the case of public funding, it might be necessary to
explain to the public why they should spend public money on space activities. This
phase requires research by the project leading team which means that costs, at least in
terms of human resources, start to increase from here.
3. Calculating a point estimate. This step involves the running of different models,
normalizing of results, adjusting available options to actual needs, and determining
financial budgets available.
4. Calculating cost risk distributions. In this portion, the collecting and weighing of risk
inputs as well as converting cost estimates to specific numbers at a budgetary level
occurs. It is very important to allocate planned contingency within the budget in order
to avoid over exceeding the budget. In case of a budget overrun, the reputation of the
public sponsor is also at risk.
5. Time phase for budget breakout. Here, the duration of the program is usually set.
Exceeding project time lines causes budgetary overruns. Thus, appropriate management
and monitoring mechanisms must be applied in order to maintain the envisaged
schedule (Larson, 2009).
7.2.2 Budgeting Specifics in Space Projects
For typical business endeavors it is essential to keep a positive cash flow. It is important to
ensure that liquid assets are available before major payments are due. For small satellite projects
it is indispensable to keep a certain financial margin in order to be able to afford labor and
substantial expenditures as identified in advance. For this purpose, it is very important to
maintain a project cash flow plan in order to monitor continuously and have sufficient
contingency in liquid assets, which can be released when needed (Sallaberger, 2011).
The budget should be as detailed and transparent as possible, but also flexible to internal
changes. In the case of public funding, there should also be a source to cover Valued Added Tax
(VAT) determined in the project. In many countries VAT is not an applicable public cost and
thus, the funding source for VAT should be determined separately. In case this issue is not
considered in the process of acquiring a public budget, the costs for VAT must be covered at a
later stage by other essential line items of the project (Boden and Larson, 1996).
7.2.3 Space and Launch Insurance
Insurance has become an integral part of all business activities, especially in industries with a
high risk of financial loss. Space operations, like satellite launching and deployment, have
increased risk during transportation, launch, and orbit, as well as increased exposure to
environmental and natural phenomena. Space operations are therefore subject to high-insurance
costs. The Russian Insurance Center (1998) states:

This insurance is a relationship to protect the property interests of legal persons in

case of loss or accidental damage of rocket-space vehicles and retired with them into
space satellites (hereinafter - the cosmic objects), as well as in the case of claims by
third parties (hereinafter - the third persons), injury to life and health or property
which was caused by falling debris launches of space objects, and in the case made
additional costs or damages related to space launch facilities.
Risk is the potential for unwanted consequences against human life, cost, business, and project.
Risk analysis is the process of qualification of the probabilities and expected consequences for
identified risk (TU Delft, 2011). The insurance companies pay attention to risk analysis. This
analysis determines the final cost of insurance. It is in the international interest for insurance to
be provided for all space activities that are of high risk since all launching states are responsible
for events occurring in orbit (United Nations, 2002). The international community puts pressure
on satellite owners, satellite manufacturers, launch services providers, insurance brokers,
underwriters, financial institutions, re-insurers, and government agents worldwide (Commercial
Space Transportation, 2006, p.SR-1) to work together in insuring S/C. Space insurance provides
warranty for accidental damage, financial compensation in the case of an incident, and
contributes to continuity of the production cycle. The main cost of space insurance programs is
due to the risky launch phase.
There are five main types of insurance for satellites and launchers: manufacturing, pre-launch,
launch, in-orbit commissioning, and in-orbit life. The manufacturing insurance provides
insurance during the satellite development phase and covers costs of unexpected and
unpredictable mishaps. Pre-launch insurance covers costs of failures while the S/C is
transported to the launcher and in the pre-launch phase on the launch pad. This insurance is
limited in time, for instance, up to 12 months (Commercial Space Transportation, 2006, p.SR-7).
Launch insurance covers costs associated with launch failure and possibly the cost of rebuilding
a new S/C. Insurance starts with launch and remains valid until the satellite is operational.
Insurance may also cover the cost of the second launch (Commercial Space Transportation,
2006, p.SR-9). In-orbit insurance indemnifies losses for in-orbit technical problems and damages
once a satellite is placed in its proper orbit. It is generally limited to some period of time,
typically the pre-operational phase. This time is dependent on a risk analysis of the S/C or
launcher involved.
The price of insurance depends on many factors such as complexity of the S/C, mission design,
sun activity (correlated to the probability of S/C failure), and expected lifetime (Timofeev,
2009). In addition, the current space insurance market varies and is strongly dependent on
recent failed missions.
Timofeev (2009, p.18) states, For building a precise prediction of the space insurance market it
is relevant to analyze the present market conditions, the historical trend and performance of the
market in the past years, as well as prediction of space weather and reliability study of space
systems. It is noteworthy that the launch providers understand their responsibilities and
liabilities. Since liability is assigned to the member state by treaty (United Nations, 2002), most
nations have addressed the requirement for transferring liability to the operator by mandating
specific levels of insurance to be taken. Thus, it is up to the operator to become familiar with
their domestic laws, and seek insurance coverage at an appropriate level. Marsh (2011) provides
examples of different kinds of satellite insurances.

In general, there is no practice of insuring pico- and nano-satellites, as the cost of insurance may
contribute a significant part of project budget.
7.3 Mission Architecture and Design
The following section will discuss the architecture and design of small satellite missions with a
focus on programmatic perspectives and design drivers in terms of risk, cost, and schedule.
These factors will be demonstrated through examples.
A space mission consists of three main segments: the space, ground, and user segments (see
Figure 7-2). Developing a space mission is an iterative process and the first steps of the process
are to define the mission concept and establish requirements. These steps are followed by
comparing, evaluating, and selecting from the options, and finally, weighing the result against
the initial mission concept and requirements (Aas, 2009). Based on these selections,
manufacturing of systems and components need to be taken into consideration. The need for
in-house capabilities or alternatively, outsourcing options must be addressed. This decision is
based on existing in-house capabilities, expertise, facilities, and tools, as well as available
resources, cost, and risk. The following subsections will elaborate on the development and
acquisition of manufacturing capabilities.
Figure 7-2: Interaction of space, ground, and user segments of a mission
7.3.1 Space Segment
Satellite Subsystems
The space segment can consist of one or more satellites being developed for a mission under
consideration. Each satellite typically consists of the satellite bus and one or more payloads. The
bus includes all of the subsystems that enable basic functioning of the spacecraft. These systems
include the structural members and mechanisms, power, guidance, navigation, spacecraft
control, thermal control, communication, propulsion, command, as well as data handling. The
same subsystems can be found in large and small satellites.

Some small satellites may not include all of these subsystems. For instance, small satellite
missions may not include a propulsion system in order to reduce mission complexity. However,
as small satellites take on more complex missions, electric propulsion is an option that is ideal
for near-Earth or deep space missions due to its compactness (Morris et al., 2011).
From a programmatic perspective, there are many ways of organizing the space segment. The
complete space segment can be purchased from a third party and the operator can become
familiar with management and operation aspects only. On the opposite side of the spectrum,
everything can be built in-house with the associated risk, demands of experts, facilities, and
capabilities of a customized program. The choice to build in-house or to outsource development
depends on the assets, goals, and program philosophy of the organization.
Small satellites are typically made in a modular fashion for simplicity of design and integration.
With this architecture, individual groups can create components, which then are integrated in a
plug-and-play fashion (McNutt, 2009). In terms of component supply, elements can be selected
in a competitive process from a variety of prospective providers. This approach is known as
space plug-and-play avionics (SPA) and relies on modular systems that incorporate intelligent
interfaces and standards (Lyke et al., 2005). The space segment subsystems are described in
Table 7-2.
Table 7-2: Satellite subsystems

Subsystem Description Small satellite features
Consists of application specific Typical application payloads
equipment and is the key driver of include cameras for remote sensing,
the satellite bus requirements. transponders for communication,
scatterometers, altimeters, and
Payload radiometers for meteorological
purposes, magnetometers,
spectrometers, sun sensors, and
biomedical equipment for other
scientific applications.
Houses all of the subsystems and Stiffness and thermal tolerance are
provides the strength and stiffness more important for large structures.
required to withstand the stresses
experienced during transportation,
Structure
launch, and in orbit. It is crucial
that the structure withstands the
extreme thermal environment
encountered in orbit.
Ensures that ground commands For critical tasks (processor,
received by the communication memory) radiation tolerant and
subsystem are forwarded to the space-qualified parts are preferable,
addressed subsystem. Collects and while other parts of the circuit
On-Board Data forwards housekeeping data that is boards can be non-space qualified
Handling necessary for monitoring the health COTS components. PhoneSat, for
of the satellite. example, will use a mobile phone
that went through qualification
tests for use as on-board computer
(Marshall, 2011).

Subsystem Description Small satellite features

Provides electrical power to the Small satellites typically use body-
satellite. A classic solution is to use mounted solar cells. There have
solar cells to provide power during been small satellite missions
the sun phase of the orbit that is powered exclusively by pre-charged
Power
buffered with batteries. The batteries, though these missions
batteries provide power to the were only able to operate for short
satellite when it passes into an periods of time.
eclipsed portion of the orbit.
This system incorporates antennas, Small satellite missions often rely
cables, amplifiers, and a processing on amateur frequency bands,
unit referred to as software defined especially for low data rate
radio. Requires both hardware and telemetry and telecommand. The
software elements. Transmits down link of scientific data typically
Communication
housekeeping and scientific data to requires higher data rates, thus
Earth and receives commands and missions often resort to regulated
data from Earth. bands requiring frequency
allocation, which must be identified
and allocated in advance.
Keeps the satellite and its systems Passive thermal control is often
within a specified temperature and sufficient for small satellites.
temperature gradient range by
Thermal radiating unnecessary heat into
space. Electronics would cease to
function without proper thermal
control.
Performs attitude control by Many small satellites only rely on
maintaining the satellites very simple systems to control their
Guidance,
orientation and navigation control attitude, as their pointing
Navigation and
by maintaining the orbit and requirements are not stringent.
Control
trajectory. Attitude determination is sufficient
for some applications.
Some missions are exploring the Contributes significantly to the
use of various propulsion systems overall mission complexity and
such as cold-gas thrusters or development time and therefore, it
MicroElectro Mechanical Systems- is not often incorporated in small
based (MEMS) propulsion systems satellites. Currently, the objective of
(Courtney, 2011). More research is most of these missions is
required in electric propulsion since independent of changes in orbit,
Propulsion it would be ideal for near-Earth but interest in propulsion for small
applications and is an excellent satellites is gaining momentum. It
candidate for small satellites could be an option for tasks such
(Morris et al, 2011). as station-keeping, attitude control,
possibly de-orbiting at the end-of-
life (to reduce space debris), and
even orbital maneuvering (Mueller
et al., 2010; Morris et al, 2011).

On-board Hardware and Software
When designing a satellite, the hardware needs to be capable of withstanding transportation,

launch, and the harsh space environment throughout the mission lifetime. Hardware can either
be developed in-house or purchased and outsourced, respectively. The choice to go with one or
the other depends on the goals, budget, and philosophy of the space program as well as on the
available assets, expertise, and resources. COTS hardware, however, is widely available for the
satellite market. COTS equipment is for general-purpose applications such as communications,
sensors, and structures. It should be mentioned, that both space-qualified and non-space-
qualified COTS equipment exist on the market. The selection between the two depends on the
respective design philosophy followed. The fact that figures of merit and costs are known in
advance is beneficial for COTS equipment. It is good practice to acquire information about the
manufacturer in terms of product support in order to reduce risk of failure or delays during
integration.
On-board software is an indispensable part of modern spacecraft. It complements the hardware

to provide the envisioned functionality. It can easily be changed and adapted during both the
development phase or during flight. This provides a degree of freedom throughout several
mission phases. Thus, the use of flight or on-board software for space missions has increased
(CNES, 2005). The functionality and complexity of flight programming may largely vary
depending on the mission and the level of autonomy required. Typical activities carried out by
on-board software are: data exchange between the different subsystems, management of those
subsystems, processing of acquired data, and communication with ground (CNES, 2005).
Typically flight software must meet demanding quality standards to avoid malfunctions during
radiation events that are known to affect the memory and processors. Since the flight software is
typically designed to support specific hardware, the trade-off between developing the software
in-house or outsourcing the software is driven by the choice of hardware.
Examples of Small Satellite Standards
When developing several small satellites with similar objectives, it may be interesting to use a
common platform. The platforms of Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. (SSTL) are good examples
of how standardization can considerably simplify mission design and operation. SSTL is now
able to sell satellites as finite products and guarantee costs and schedule from their previous
experience (SSTL, 2011).
The CubeSat standard was developed by the California Polytechnic State University and
Stanford University in 1999. The standard contains three types of pico-satellites: 1U, 2U, and
3U sizes. First, a 1U (1 unit) CubeSat is 10 x 10 x 11.3 cm in dimension with weight no more
than 1.33 kg. The second is a 2U satellite (2 units) with dimensions of 10 x 10 x 22.6 cm and
third is a 3U satellite (3 units) with dimensions 10 x 10 x 34.05 cm and weight no more than 4
kg. This corresponds to the specification that a satellite should fulfill in order to be integrated on
the standard interface with launchers (Lee, 2009).

CubeSat electronic components, if designed and built with the appropriate design standard, are
compatible with the PC104 commercial standard. The PC104 standard defines electronic device
compatibility and facilitates building scalable and complex systems. In addition, the use of
standard components may decrease project cost and design time. Many CubeSat-compatible
components are commercially available from several suppliers. The final product can be adapted
to different missions in a relatively short period of time. These components can be more easily
adapted to more complex missions with relaxed performance requirements. CubeSat mechanical
components are also commercially available. The design and production of mechanical parts is
reasonably straightforward and can be tailored to larger structures if required by the mission.
Deployable solar arrays are also available to increase power availability. On the other hand,
CubeSat standard components are generally limited in bandwidth data rate and power because
of the form factor of the components. Further limitations arise due to the short lifetime and
limited possibilities for thermal control (Jordan, 2006).
The TubeSat standard is even smaller at three-quarters the mass and volume of a CubeSat.
InterOrbital Systems offers TubeSat Kits that include a launch into a 310 km altitude low Earth
orbit, and ensuring an orbit lifetime of at least a few weeks (Atkinson, 2009).
Space Environment
The harsh conditions of space must be considered during the design phase. The near vacuum
environment of space results in material out-gassing, which can change the material properties
and cause corrosion. Limited thermal transfer for radiation and conduction is a challenging
requirement since the satellite must remain in a given temperature range. Radiation due to
ambient plasma, cosmic rays, and solar radiation can damage electronics. Space and orbital
debris includes man-made debris, cosmic dust, and meteors and can cause mechanical damage.
Finally, a weightless environment causes different behaviors in the spacecraft structure and the
system must be designed with a high rigidity in order to avoid vibrations. This last concern is
typically only an issue for larger space structures (Green, 2011).
These environmental effects drive many of the requirements of a satellite mission and
contribute significantly to cost, risk, and schedule. The mission lifetime will be affected and
significant efforts are required in terms of reliability, redundancy, and failure tolerance to ensure
that the satellite survives the space environment for a longer period.
Orbit and Constellation
Orbit selection is critical for a space mission since it affects the payload performance and the
spacecraft design. Normally, the mission payload objectives dictate the orbit selection. In the
case of small satellite missions, which often aim for a piggyback launch, some necessary
compromises should be considered early in the design phase. The orbit influences many aspects
of the mission such as time in sunlight versus eclipse (that is, power supply requirements),
radiation, spatial versus temporal resolution, coverage zone, lifetime, launch cost, and treaties
(Wertz and Larson, 2008). Typically, small satellite missions, for example, CubeSats, operate in
LEO, but this is not a principal restriction.

Many satellite applications require short revisit times that are beyond the possibilities of a single
satellite. Satellite constellations can acquire more data than a single satellite by using different
sensors (for example, spectral bands) and performing independent or duplicate measurements
of a target simultaneously.
The use of a constellation reduces manufacturing costs since the same design can be applied to
multiple satellites. However, the overall mission costs increase since more satellites need to be
built, launched, and operated. In addition, a constellation increases operational complexity since
the ground segment must have tracking capabilities to acquire multiple satellites. In addition, the
ground station must incorporate more storage, processing, and data distribution capacities.
Examples of small satellite and nano-satellite constellation missions include the Disaster
Monitoring Constellation (70 kg satellites), the Rapid-Eye Constellation, and the BRITE
Constellation (Sun et al., 2001; DMC, 2011; Schwarzenberg-Czerny, 2010). Current nano-
satellite developments like the CanX-4 and CanX-5 bus from the University of Toronto
Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTIAS) Space Flight Laboratories (SFL) are increasing flight
capabilities beyond constellations and moving toward autonomous precision formation flying
for satellites of below 7 kg (Orr, 2007).
7.3.2 Ground Segment
The ground segment provides a communication link to send commands to the satellite in
addition to receiving data, providing data archiving, and distributing data to users. The ground
segment includes communications, mission planning, mission operations, monitoring and
assessment of anomalies. A schedule is required to allow satellite operators to perform all
necessary tasks within the available resources.
Moreover, the frequency band used has to be considered since it determines the size and
complexity of the ground station system.
Single Ground Stations versus Ground Station Networks
For small satellite missions, the ground segment often consists of a single ground station that
performs all tasks. However, as the orbital period of a satellite in LEO is of the order of
90 minutes, a single ground station will only be able to establish contact during a limited amount
of time (10-15 minutes), during which time the antenna needs to track the satellite continuously.
The use of a ground station network instead of a single ground station is desirable. The
advantage of using a ground station network is the increased availability and redundancy of
satellite contact. However, a network of ground stations introduces complexity and leads to
higher costs in terms of interfaces and human resources. Individual ground stations should be
optimally placed around the globe in order to maximize the performance and efficiency and to
minimize ground segment costs.

Ground Station Configuration
A typical ground station consists of outdoor and indoor units. The outdoor units include
antennas for transmitting and receiving, antenna elevation and azimuth pointing mechanisms as
well as electronics such as radio frequency (RF) power amplifiers and frequency converters. The
indoor unit includes transmitting and receiving units, computer controlled units for automatic
satellite tracking, software for prediction and location of the satellite as well as for frequency and
Doppler shift corrections. In addition, computers for data storage and telemetry decoding and
display as well as data processing and distribution units are required to deliver data to the users.
The ground segment software is designed to minimize the intervention required by the
operators. The software may also support the capability to track and control multiple satellites
from a centralized control point. For these tasks, many freeware applications, especially from
the amateur radio community are available, for instance, SatPC32 (SatPC32, 2011), Orbitron
(Orbitron, 2011), and HamRadioDeluxe (Ham Radio Deluxe, 2011). In addition, operations of
the ground segment can be carried out remotely via Internet connection. Systems used in the
ground segment should be kept simple, inexpensive, and effective. COTS components may be
used to reduce costs and establish new ground stations rapidly.
Options for Small Satellite Operations
There are two ground segment options for small satellite operations. The first option is to
establish an individual ground station or a network of ground stations. This option allows for
the customization of ground stations according to mission requirements in terms of ground
station hardware and software. This approach is sustainable if further missions are planned in
the future. To establish a sustainable small satellite program, long term planning of ground
segment requirements needs to be taken into account in order to better serve the different types
of future missions carried out. In this respect, flexibility and modularity are key issues to be
considered. Disadvantages include possible high costs depending on the mission needs and the
required configuration of the ground station as well as the need to have qualified personnel for
establishing, maintaining, and operating the ground station.
The second option is to buy excess capacity from existing ground stations or networks. The
outsourcing option does not build capacity, but is a simpler and quicker solution than
developing in-house capabilities. Drawbacks include lack of sustainability as well as constraints
in interfaces and standards, and availability of the stations as they typically serve multiple
missions.
An example of a cooperative ground station network is the European Space tracking

(ESTRACK) station network that includes stations all across the globe and share capacity for
various Earth observation and deep-space missions (ESA_a, 2011). There are also Earth
observation tracking stations in polar regions, for example, Svalbard or Kiruna, which provide
frequent contact times with polar orbiting satellites.

Examples of Small Satellite Ground Stations and Networks
The ESA GENSO is a worldwide ground station network that relies on an ESA developed
software standard and provides the capacity to serve a variety of educational missions. The
International Space Education Board, consists of representatives from the Canadian Space
Agency (CSA), Centre National d' Etudes Spatiales (CNES), ESA, JAXA, and NASA, all of
which support the GENSO program (GENSO, 2011). GENSO is based on amateur radio
frequencies, which significantly simplifies the frequency coordination process. In addition, low-
cost off the shelf amateur radio hardware can be used. The network allows users which do not
have their own ground station in certain locations to access other existing GENSO facilities
around the world via the freely available GENSO software. Users can log in to any GENSO
station, provided that capacity is available. Constraints of the GENSO network include limited
data rates and limited applications (non-commercial) since only amateur radio frequencies are
used.
Examples of missions that use GENSO are HumSAT (Humsat, 2011) and QB50 (VKI, 2011).
Additional information about GENSO can be found on the GENSO homepage, including
participating organizations, benefits, and supported ground station hardware. (GENSO, 2011)
The BRITE mission consists of a constellation of currently six nano-satellites. The goal of the
mission was to observe massive luminous stars and to measure the variation in their brightness
by means of differential photometry (TU Graz, 2011). The BRITE ground segment consists of a
small ground station network including control stations in Austria (Graz, Vienna), Canada
(Toronto), and Poland (Warsaw). Each station will control its own BRITE satellite and the other
stations will be available as a backup. For data downlink, a frequency spectrum in the science S-
band was selected. For that purpose, each station uses an S-band receive antenna of
approximately three meters in diameter. Uplink is performed in the amateur UHF band. The
ground stations operate with a proprietary, mission specific software architecture.
The ground segment that supports the SwissCube consists of two ground stations. One is
located at EPFL, in Lausanne and the other is located at HE-Fribourg, both in Switzerland. The
performance of the former is slightly greater than that of the latter due to their antennas (EPFL,
2011). Uplink and downlink communications are performed using amateur radio frequencies.
7.3.3 User Segment
The user segment is an important design driver in the mission, because it represents all the
different users and their needs. Users can be from different backgrounds (scientists, academia,
research institutions, governments, military, and commercial and civil customers) and expect
different outcomes from the mission. It is the responsibility of the ground segment to be able to
deliver those demands in the appropriate manner. The basic flow between the segments is that
user requests are delivered to the ground segment and in return it disseminates the required data
back to the users with the appropriate data integrity and protection.

Typical user requirements that should be included in the design are:

Effective communication flow of requests to the ground segment and the correct data
in the appropriate time
Applications software and hardware for deciphering, analyzing and usage of the data
attained
Technical support the ability to get solutions for issues with applications and
interfaces.
The application that the user requires changes from mission to mission: For remote sensing, for
example, it would be image, video and data processing programs, while it would be processing
hardware and software for location, velocity and attitude for GNSS, and antenna and reception
unit for receiving and sending data for communication.
7.3.4 Interfaces
Interfacing is a fundamental issue and requires consideration throughout the space, ground, and
user segments. Interfaces on all levels must be appropriately designed and carefully documented
and if the implementation of standards is considered, further investigation will need to be
performed to evaluate the suitability for the desired mission. Implementing standards can be
beneficial in terms of using COTS equipment or software. They also limit the flexibility of
interfaces or make interfaces more complex than desired.
7.3.5 Launch
Finding the right launch opportunity for small satellites may be complex since a wide variety of
possibilities exist. Mission requirements for the launch exist not only for the capabilities of the
launch vehicle itself, but also for the environment and facilities available at the launch site.
Based on those requirements, different launch providers and launch options (such as primary or
secondary payload options) should be reviewed. Once a solution is identified, negotiation with
the launch provider can begin. Instead of going through the steps above, it is possible to ask for
the service of a launch broker. A launch broker arranges a launch for the satellite developer and
will aid in identifying opportunities for secondary payload launches.
Primary Payload
Launching a small satellite as a primary payload may be considered if orbital characteristics are
important to the mission. The facilities of the launch site or the entire launch can be shared with
a consortium or as part of a constellation. Due to the strong demand for launches of small
payloads, several small launch vehicles for satellites weighing from less than 10 kg up to 300 kg
are in development or already operational (Christensen et al., 2010). Some of the commercial
launch providers whose primary focus is on space tourism have also shown interest in launching
small satellites.
The 50 double CubeSats participating in the QB50 constellation will be launched as a primary
payload by a Shtil-2.1 rocket from Murmansk in Russia. The total mass of the constellation is
estimated to be approximately 230 kg, equivalent to the weight of a single smaller satellite
(Muylaert, 2009).

Secondary Payload
Another option is to launch a small satellite as a secondary payload. A method that is very
popular in the small satellite industry is piggyback launching. Piggybacking refers to a shared
launch together with another, primary payload. Secondary payload opportunities have a lower
cost compared to the cost of procuring a dedicated launch. Many launch providers are offering
launch opportunities for secondary payloads. However, the small satellite orbit characteristics
will be the same as that of the primary payload. For payloads that have particular orbital
requirement, this is a limiting factor as small satellites are less likely to have the ability to
conduct orbital transit maneuvers.
The Russian satellite Yubileiny is one example of the many piggyback launches in the history of
small satellites. It was launched on a Rocket provided by Plestesk Cosmodrome together with
other spacecraft belonging to the Russian Ministry of Defense (AMSAT, 2011).
In some countries it may be possible to obtain free launch opportunities. The FalconSat
Program, for example, actively pursues low- or no-cost launch options through the US
Government. Often the first launch of a new launch vehicle provides opportunities for payloads
perceived as being risky. Also, free launch opportunities on the European launcher Vettore
Europeo di Generazione Avanzata (VEGA) are offered to ESA member states.
In Table 7-3, some of the vehicles providing piggyback launches for small satellites, or launches
as a primary payload (small vehicles, able to send less than 2,000 kg in LEO orbit) are presented,
as of 2011. Launch frequency is the usual occurrence of launch per year, and small satellite
launch frequency is the average number of small satellites launched per year (Schuch et al., 2010;
SpaceX, 2011).
7.3.6 Commissioning
Once the satellite is separated from the launch vehicle, that is, the launch is successfully
completed, the operations control center on the ground starts to track and control the satellite.
The control center verifies the satellites orbital location and, if necessary, changes in the
satellites orbit will be performed. Before starting the actual operations phase of the satellite, in-
orbit performance of the satellite is validated through a series of predefined tests.
During the commissioning phase, if required and possible, slight adjustments of the satellite
orbit may be performed. Once the satellite is correctly positioned, the capabilities of each
subsystem must be validated through a set of predefined test sequences. In order to efficiently
validate the system functions, the commissioning team typically consists of a group of experts
who specialize in the different subsystems of the satellite. This includes payload specialists,
members of the operations team, and on board equipment specialists (SPOT, 2006).

Table 7-3: Launch vehicles

Small
Vehicle
satellite
Vehicle Operator Country Class launch
launch
frequency
frequency
PSLV ISRO India Medium ~2 a year ~6 a year
Medium-
Falcon 9 SpaceX USA ~4 a year ~2 a year
Heavy
United
Delta II Launch USA Medium ~8 a year N/A
Alliance
Minotaur Orbital
USA Small ~3 a year ~2 a year
IV Sciences
Orbital
Taurus USA Small ~1 a year ~2 a year
Sciences
International
Proton Launch USA and Russia Heavy ~11 a year N/A
Services
Eurockot
Rokot Launch Germany and Russia Small ~2 a year N/A
Services
ISC Russia, Ukraine, and
Dnepr-1 Medium ~3 a year ~3 a year
Kosmotras Kazakhstan
Shtil N/A Russia Small N/A N/A
Medium-
Zenit Sea Launch Russia and Ukraine N/A N/A
Heavy
Source: based on (Schuch et al., 2010; SpaceX, 2011)
Main operations carried out during in-orbit commissioning are:

Validating payload programming and operations
Monitoring behavior of satellite bus
In orbit behavior of satellite
Calibration activities (Levrini et al., 2001)
Comparing actual behavior of the satellite parameters with those predicted and
measured on the ground
Identifying anomalies if any
Commissioning close out
Depending on the complexity, type, and application of the small satellite, the time required for
in-orbit commissioning may vary, For example, the commissioning phase for NigeriaSAT-2
(Space Blog, 2011) and UoSAT-12 (Steyn and Hashida, 1999) took two to three months.
However, delays can occur if problems arise during calibration. They should be taken into
account in the project schedule.

After commissioning, daily operations begin, and the satellite control is passed to the operations
team. If long commissioning phases are anticipated, the handover to the customer may be
impacted and there may be a requirement within the launch contract to pay a late penalty to the
customer.
7.3.7 Operations and Support
It is crucial to accurately know the location of the satellite. Frequent orbit predication is
necessary to provide a continuous awareness of the satellites location at a given time. The
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) maintains a database providing
updated satellite positions in terms of Two-Line Elements (TLE). This data can be accessed and
used in conjuncture with satellite tracking software to predict the position of the spacecraft
(Kelso, 2007). The accuracy of the prediction depends on satellite attitude, altitude, atmosphere
conditions, and the models used to predict the satellites location.
Communication time delay between the space segment and ground segment represents a time
constraint that is defined by the time period in which the segments are in view of each other.
Hence, the time during which communications with the space segment is possible is determined
by the number of participating ground stations, the site locations, and the satellite orbit. Further
limitations arise from weather and atmospheric impairments as well as interference. This limited
time, when communication is possible is called communication pass. It is assessed by orbit
predication resulting in start and end times. If either the space segment or the ground segment
consist of more than one satellite or ground station, respectively, appropriate multiple access
schemes must be foreseen in order to avoid communication conflicts and clashes. Satellites are
supposed to fulfill certain actions (that is, remote sensing of a specific area) when flying over a
specific location or at a certain time. Often the dedicated ground station is not available (not in
view) to forward commands just in time, hence proper pre-planning and command scheduling is
required beforehand. Thus, pre-planned command and control files tackling these timing issues
must be uploaded ahead of time of action.
In addition to providing orbit predication and command files, one must know what kind of data
will be downloaded and uploaded (that is, command files, telemetry, and data) and what time
constraints apply given the foreseen communication pass. The amount of data that can be
transferred within the time window of a communication pass is determined by the available
bandwidth, the coding scheme used, the modulation schemes and the protocols. A safety margin
for communications should always be considered to avoid data leaks due to changes in the link
environment such as changing weather conditions.
Besides nominal operations, exceptional mission states such as malfunctions may arise and will
require personnel to interact. Operation management needs to take this into account and, in
accordance to the mission requirements, needs to foresee appropriate means like shift work, or
operators on standby. Those means can significantly contribute to the costs for operations and
thus to the overall mission costs. To relax the necessity of human interaction automation can be
foreseen. Automation adds to the complexity of the mission and therefore, contributes to the
mission costs (Kwas et al., 2011). Hence, a trade-off may be required to find the optimal balance
between the two factors. Also, the envisaged sustainability of the space program should be taken
into consideration. If the application of automation does not pay for itself within the first
mission, it can have its break even in the next mission, for instance.

7.3.8 End of Mission
At the end of the operational phase of a mission, measures should be taken to prevent the
creation of space debris. As discussed in Section 5.3.3, debris is of major concern for the future
of space exploration. To mitigate that issue, current IADC guidelines state that a spacecraft
should not stay in orbit longer than 25 years after the end of its mission.
Therefore, satellite disposal considerations should be integrated in the mission design. If the
satellites altitude is low enough, atmospheric drag can cause reduced altitude, and eventually
cause the satellite to reenter the Earths atmosphere. Several groups are developing parachute-
like systems for satellites orbiting at low altitudes (Jablonski et al., 2009) to accelerate that
process and add a certain control on the reentry process.
For satellites equipped with a propulsion system, it might be appealing to plan for additional
propellant to move the satellite to a graveyard orbit at End-Of-Life (EOL) or to cause it to
reenter the atmosphere. Miniaturized propulsion systems are gaining in popularity, especially in
electric propulsion (Courtney, 2011; Morris et al, 2011; Mueller, 2010). For example, at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) four electric propulsion thrusters were installed on
a CubeSat (Courtney, 2011). However, equipping small satellites with any propulsion system
adds complexity to the entire mission design.
Newly developed concepts such as drag-creating devices (solar sails, deployable booms) or space
tethers may prove to be interesting in the future. In case of a re-entry, a controlled re-entry
method would assure that any remaining debris will not cross a flight corridor or crash on
populated areas. In case of an uncontrolled re-entry it should be assured that the satellite burns
up completely in the upper atmosphere. This is more of a concern if the mass of the satellite is
large or if it contains hazardous materials (Ailor, 1998).
7.4 Infrastructure and Test Facilities
A spacecraft must be qualified before launch in order to sustain the extreme environmental
conditions during launch and in space. Various ground tests are part of the satellite qualification
program. The requirements of these tests depend on the critical aspects of the mission, the
selection of the launcher, and the expected lifetime of the satellite. To conduct these tests, all or
some of the required test facilities can be set up in-house. In many cases, some or most of the
tests will likely be conducted at already existing test facilities.
This section provides an overview of the needed infrastructure and testing facilities at different
phases of a small satellite project, from the manufacturing of parts, subsystem and system level
testing, assembly and integration of the satellite, to the environmental testing required to achieve
its flight readiness. Emphasis is put on which facilities and tests are mandatory for small satellite
projects and which are optional, but recommended in order to decrease mission risk and to save
time and costs.
A key issue in this respect is whether compliance with certain standards is required in terms of
manufacturing and testing based on the mission requirements, as well as with qualification
criteria required by the chosen launch service provider. For instance, ESA projects apply the
ECSS standards (ECSS, 2011).

7.4.1 Manufacturing and System-Level Tests
In order to manufacture satellite parts, specially equipped laboratories and workshops are
required. The first consideration is whether to develop hardware in-house or outsource this task.
In many cases parts can be purchased rather than manufactured for the purpose of lower costs.
If it is decided to develop hardware in-house, appropriate facilities and laboratories will be
required. Depending on the design philosophy, the requirements can be less demanding for
small satellite missions compared to bigger missions. For example, for the soldering of
electronic components, in most cases a cleanroom environment is not essential, unless
compliance with certain standards is required.
The next consideration is to define the requirements for the hardware to be used. The
requirements for manufacturing satellite parts depend on the mission goals and tasks, as well as
the adopted design philosophy, which determines the selection of hardware components. In
particular, the use of space-qualified (including COTS) vs. non-space qualified COTS hardware
has to be considered. The latter is especially attractive for small satellites in terms of mass and
costs. The advantages and drawbacks of both approaches are discussed in detail in Section 7.3.1.
Once the satellite parts have been built, functional testing is required to assess the performance
of the hardware. For functional testing at subsystem and system level, a cleanroom can also be
expendable unless standards need to be fulfilled, although a clean environment is always
desirable.
At subsystem level it is often necessary to perform thermal and shock tests, for which a thermal
chamber is required. During thermal testing, the satellite parts (not operating) are tested with a
series of thermal cycles, in which the temperature changes rapidly from the high to the low
extreme. For that purpose, either a thermal chamber with a provision to vary temperature in
gradients is required or alternatively two chambers can be used, one for each temperature
setting. During thermal testing, the satellite parts are tested under extreme temperature
conditions in cycles while they are operating to simulate sunrise and sunset on the satellite every
hour and a half. For this purpose, a thermal chamber with stable temperature gradients is
required.
7.4.2 Spacecraft Assembly and Integration
For the assembly of critical satellite parts, like optics, a cleanroom is required in order to avoid
contamination by particles that could degrade their performance. However, for very small
projects, which do not include critical parts such as optics, a lab with controlled temperature and
humidity may also be suitable.
7.4.3 Environmental Testing
After the full satellite assembly, environmental testing of the assembled satellite is performed.
The tests to be carried out depend on the scope of the mission. CubeSats, for example, may not
require all of the standard satellite environmental tests. The main driver for environmental
testing is the launch vehicle.

The launch vehicle imposes a set of tests which need to be performed to make sure that the
spacecraft does not affect the launchers environment and other spacecrafts on the same vehicle,
as well as that it can survive the launch. Environmental testing typically includes shock, acoustic,
vibration, thermal vacuum, and ElectroMagnetic Compatibility testing (EMC) (Perl et al., 2005).
For all environmental tests, specific testing facilities are required including a vibration table,
acoustic and shock test facilities. A vibration table simulates the vibration levels that the
spacecraft experiences during the launch and is used for vibration testing. The table needs to be
large enough to support the size and weight of the test object and must have the capability of
vary the frequencies of vibrating table in all three axes. In addition, it is necessary to perform all
the required vibration profiles in order to be compliant with the launcher.
Acoustic testing is performed to make sure that the satellite can sustain acoustic levels that it will
be exposed to while being launched (Perl et al., 2005). The test is performed in an acoustic
chamber.
Shock testing is used to simulate shocks that the spacecraft can experience during launch
whenever separations of parts of the rocket (for example, stages, fairings) occur, which could
potentially damage the spacecraft (Perl et al., 2005).
To validate the correct functionality of the spacecraft in orbit and for degassing, thermal-
vacuum testing is performed, during which the satellite will be exposed to the typical conditions
to be expected in space (vacuum, extreme temperatures). The test will be performed in a
thermal-vacuum chamber, which needs to be large enough to accommodate the satellite and its
testing support equipment, and must provide suitable testing conditions such as vacuum and
temperature levels as well as test cable feedthroughs.
Electromagnetic compatibility testing is required to assess potential interference of the satellite

radios and electronics with its own subsystems as well as with the launcher. In order to perform
this test, an anechoic chamber is required as typically used for antenna testing.
Once the satellite has successfully gone through all environmental testing it reaches its flight
readiness and is ready to launch.
7.4.4 Launch Integration Testing and Facilities
In addition to the above testing facilities, the following operational facilities are required in case
of dedicated launch facilities. A satellite checkout testing facility ensures communication of the
spacecraft and ground system during the pre-launch phase for monitoring the health of the
satellite.
The launch sites are usually also equipped with solar panel deployment testing facilities. These
facilities ensure pre-launch testing of the spacecraft before it is moved and integrated with the
launch vehicle.

A critical task is the storage and transport of the satellite to the launch site. The transport
container must ensure that the satellite is protected from shock, vibration, and temperature and
humidity changes. A controlled temperature and humid environment is extremely desirable for
the spacecraft and could be provided by a container with a built-in cooling system with controls.
If the satellite carries propulsion, a satellite fuel filling facility is also required. Since the fuel used
for operation of the satellite on orbit is liquid, sufficient safety procedures need to be adopted
for filling the fuel into the gas bottles inside the spacecraft before launch. The necessary
interfaces like valves and pressure regulators need to be considered.
7.4.5 Infrastructure Development
Building or establishing specialized infrastructure for assembly and testing of small satellites is a
complex and expensive process. It is essential to carefully determine the requirements for the
facilities, taking into consideration not only the mission for which they will be first established
but also following missions. The strategy must be clear in advance in order to dimension the
facilities in a sustainable way according to the scope of future programs. For example, if the first
mission is a CubeSat that takes measurements of the Earths magnetic field, but the long-term
goal is to build micro satellites for remote sensing involving optical instruments, the clean room
that needs to be built must fulfill the required cleanliness class.
Although it can be advantageous to have all development and testing facilities in-house, it is not
always necessary, especially when environmental tests have to be carried out. There are many
specialized test facilities and cooperation opportunities available that can provide capacities.
Cooperation is usually established with universities, companies or other research organizations,
allowing for sharing available facilities among entities to moderate costs.
Another option is to rent specialized test facilities on demand in case collaborations are not
available. Renting facilities can help reduce costs and valuable time, as there is no need to build
in-house facilities. The disadvantage of renting or sharing test facilities is the availability of the
facility or equipment, which is not always given according to the project schedule, causing
possible delays. In addition, in some cases the equipment to be tested must be transferred to the
facility (it could be several hundreds of kilometers), increasing the risk of hardware damage and
costs (for example, travel costs, insurances).
The BRITE mission is an example of cooperation on sharing capacities among project partners.
In certain phases of the project, available test facilities and infrastructure of the different project
partners were used to perform assembly and testing of parts or environmental testing. For
example, the acceptance testing for the BRITE Austria payload was performed at UTIAS/SFL
using their optical test bench and clean room; thermal vacuum chamber testing (TVAC) of the
BRITE Austria satellite was performed at the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of
Science, sharing both capability in terms of the TVAC chamber and the clean room.
In addition, for the UniBRITE satellite, UTIAS/SFL rented the facilities at the David Florida
Laboratory (DFL) test centre of the CSA for vibration and TVAC testing.

7.4.6 Software Assets
Software tools are indispensable for a space project; they are useful and mandatory tools
throughout the life of the project. A broad range of software is required to sustain the mission
design process naturally driving the costs of the space project. Purchasing specialized and in
general expensive software tools must also shape decisions about in-house development and
outsourcing. Short term licensing or software rental could be assessed in a context when the
software is only used for a short term. However, academia and research institutions often
benefit from special offers allowing them to purchase software licenses for only a part of the
actual costs; such licenses are typically limited for educational or research purposes and do not
apply if commercial aims are followed.
Popular with respect to space projects are simulation tools for orbital dynamics, communication
links, and space debris, as well as Computer Aided Design (CAD) programs, version control
software, programming environments, project management and accounting tools (Wertz and
Larson, 1996).
In contrast to commercial software products, open source- or free of charge software exists
allowing a reduction in overall project costs, if applicable. Open Source Software (OSS) refers to
computer software that is freely distributed and includes complete open source code. The user is
allowed to use, change, improve, or customize the source code, but might be obliged to make all
changes freely available. Typical disadvantages of OSS are missing technical support, possibly
incomplete documentation, missing quality assurance, and often compatibility issues.
7.5 Examples of Small Satellite Missions: Ground, Launch and User

Segment
Table 7-4 shows examples of small satellite ground and user segments, as well as launch
opportunities for SwissCube, NigeriaSat, BRITE, and Yubileiny.

Table 7-4: Ground, launch and user segment of small satellite missions
BRITE
(ICNSC-TUGRAZ, 2011)
SwissCube NigeriaSat (SRC PAS, 2011) Yubileiny
(Florian, 2011) (Gunter, (Pike, 2011) (Gunter, 2011) (N2YO, 2011)
(AMSAT, 2011)
2011)(AMSAT, 2011) (Bell, 2011) (N2YO, 2011) (CSA, 2011)
(University of Vienna, 2011)
(SRC PAS, 2010)
Ground and user segments

Ground stations in: Ground station in Ground stations in: Aerospace Vehicle
Fribourg and Abuja (Nigeria). Graz, Vienna, Laboratory SCC,
Lausanne, User segment: Warsaw, : Toronto SSAU.
Swizerland. Disaster Monitoring User segments: Telemetry analyzed
Amateur Radio Constellation TUGraz, CAMK, by students and
Live information Information sharing UTIAS-SFL scientists in
about the satellite is with respect to cooperation with
provided on a Earth observation JSC Information
SwissCube website. and disaster Satellite Systems
monitoring with the Reshetnev
Geographical Company
Information System Amateur Radio
(GIS) community
Launch opportunities
Launch vehicle: NigeriaSat-1: Austrian launch Launch provider:
PSLV-CA; Launch Provider: planned for 2011. Plesetsk
Launch date : Plesetsk Polish launch Cosmodrome
23.09.2009; Cosmodrome planned for 2012 - Launch date: 23
Launch facility: Launch Date: 27 2013. May, 2008
SDSC SHAR, India September, 2003 Launch vehicle:
Canadian launch Rokot
Launch Vehicle: planned for 2013-
Kosmos M3 2014.
NigeriaSat-X:
Launch provider:
ISC Kosmotras
Launch date: 17
August, 2011
Launch vehicle:
Dnepr
Orbit parameters and mass (SI units)
LEO (Sun- LEO (Sun- LEO (Sun- LEO
Synchronous) Synchronous) Synchronous) Apogee: 1516.50
Apogee: 752.00 NigeriaSat-1: Planned orbit: Perigee: 1485.60
Perigee: 726.00 Apogee: 698 ~800 Inclination: 82.50
Inclination: 98.28 Perigee: 676 Mass: 7 Period: 115.87
Period: 98.50 Inclination: 98.2 Mass: 48
Mass: 1 Period: 98.5
Mass: 98
NigeriaSat-X :
Apogee: 704.5
Perigee: 663.8
Inclination: 98.3
Period: 98.3
Mass: 100

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Conclusion
8 CONCLUSION
This guidebook provides advice and examples of best practices and lessons learned for
organizations wishing to enhance their ability to develop space technology via small satellite
programs.
At this point the reader should be familiar with the important issues in developing a small
satellite program. The material is meant to provide a broad overview of the relevant
considerations in creating an initial plan for implementing a small satellite program.
The rationales and strategies for establishing small satellite programs within industry, academia,
and government have been described. While such programs represent a significant commitment
in time and resources, the benefits of introducing small satellite programs into an organization
can be great for the organization, its workforce and even the community.
The small satellite environment was discussed along with a description of key stakeholders that
impact overall success or failure of a program. These stakeholders include decision makers, like
executives and politicians, suppliers, customers, partners, investors, regulators, and competitors.
The political, legal, regulatory and economic climate creates an environment that challenges
small satellite program managers and drives the characteristics of program implementation.
Small satellites are currently fulfilling roles similar to their larger counterparts in remote sensing,
disaster monitoring, vessel tracking, and astronomy, to name a few. While their small size is
both an advantage and disadvantage, small satellites provide an opportunity to contribute space-
based capabilities in innovative and cost-effective ways.
The process of creating a viable space mission concept was described along with key elements
that define the architecture and design of a mission to meet the needs, goals and objectives of
the programs stakeholders. Typical issues associated with program and project management
were described along with the tenets of space systems engineering. Critical technical issues and
approaches were identified.
Four examples of small satellite missions were consistently used throughout the guidebook:
SwissCube, BRiTE, NigeriaSat and Yublieny. These missions represent a cross-section of the
types of missions, spacecraft and launch considerations, partnerships, rationales, and legal issues
that would be encountered within the space community. Though only four missions are
presented in the guidebook, they represent the span of issues within a small satellite program.

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs Conclusion

Guidebook on Small Satellite Programs References
9 REFERENCES
AAS, C.L.O., ZANDERGEN, B.T.C., HAMANN, R.J., GILL, E.K.A., 2009. Development of
a System Level Tool for Conceptual Design of Small Satellite, 20-22 April 2009
Loughborough, UK. Loughborough, UK. pp. 8.
AASEN, C, 2011. Japan is offered data from AIS satellite. The Norwegian Spacecentre.
Available from:
<http://www.romsenter.no/Japan+is+offered+data+from+AIS+satellite.d25-
TwlvM1x.ips>. [Accessed Date 31 August 2011].
AAUSAT-II, 2008. AAUSAT-II. Available from: <http://www.space.aau.dk/aausatii/>.
[Accessed Date 3 September 2011].
AILOR, W.H., PATERA, R.,P., 1998. The Realities of Reentry Disposal Advances in Astronautical
Sciences. pp. 1059-1071.
AMOS, J., 2011. 'CommStellation': Swarm of net satellites planned. BBC NEWS Science and
Environment. Available from: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-
12238771>. [Accessed Date 25 August 2011].
APRIZE SATELLITE, 2011. Smart Data for the Long Haul. United States. Available from:
<http://www.aprizesat.com/> . [Accessed Date 28 August 2011].
ARGOUN, A. M. Recent Design and Utilization Trends of Small Satellites in Developing Countries. 11th
UN/IAA Workshop on Small Satellite Programmes at the Service of Developing
Countries, 61st International Astronautical Congress (IAC), 27 September - 1 October
2010 Prague Czech Republik. pp. 1-10.
ARMSTRONG, G., KOTLER, P., HARKER, M., BRENNAN, R., 2009. Marketing: An
Introduction. First Edition. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
ASKAR, M., TEKINALP, O., 2000. Turkish small satellite program -goals and policies. UK,
Elsevier Science Ltd. Available from: <
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1108/17dnepr/?utm_source=Listrak&utm_medi
um=Email&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spaceflightnow.com%2Fnews%2Fn1108
%2F17dnepr%2F&utm_campaign=Launch+Notification%3A+EDUSAT%2C+NIGERI
ASAT+2%2C+NIGERIASAT+X%2C+RASAT%2C+APRIZESAT+5%2C+APRIZES
AT+6%2C+SICH+2> . [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
ASRI, 2011. ASRI Partners. Israel. Available from:
<http://asri.technion.ac.il/index.php?act=page&id=73241&str=gurwin>. [Accessed Date
3 September 2011].
ATKINSON, N., 2009. Launch Your Own Personal Satellite for $8,000 USD. Available from:
<http://www.universetoday.com/36639/launch-your-own-personal-satellite-for-8000-
usd/>. [Accessed Date 30 August 2011].
BELL, E., 2011. NASA-NSSDC-Nigeria Sat 1. USA, NASA-NSSDC. Available from:
<http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftOrbit.do?id=2003-042C>. [Accessed Date 1
September 2011].

BENDER, R., 1998. Launching and Operating Satellites, Legal Issues. The Hague: Kluver Law
International.
BERLOCHER, G., 2008. Small Satellite Technology Gains Open Space To More Players.
Satellite TODAY. Available from: <http://www.viasatellite-
digital.com/viasatellite/200808?#pg1> . [Accessed Date 24 August 2011].
BHASKARANARAYANA, A., VARADARAJAN, C., HEDGE, V.S., 2009. Space-based
societal applicationsRelevance in developing countries. Acta Astronautica, Volume Vol.
65, pp. 1479-1486.
BIRKLAND, T. A., 2011. An Introduction to the Policy Process. Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public
Policy Making. Third Edition. New York: M.E. Sharp Inc.
BODEN, D.G., LARSON, J.W., 1996. Cost-Effective Space Mission Operations. USA: The McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc.
BRADFORD, A., 2003. A low cost, Agile, Earth Observation Microsatellite for Turkey. Acta
Astronautica, Volume Vol. 53, pp. 761-769.
BUHL, M., DANZIGER, B., SEGERT, T., 2011. BST Training Program - A new paradigm for
successful technology transfer. 8th IAA Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation, 4-
8 April 2011 Berlin, Germany.
CAIN, J.S., NEWLAND, F., PRANJAYA, F.M., ZEE, R., 2008. Rapid development of proof
of concept missions. AIAA 8th Responsive Space Conference. April 28 - May 1, 2008, Los
Angeles, CA. Available from:
<http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS6/SESSIONS/SESSION%20II/2004_CA
IN/2004C.pdf>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
CARAYANNIS, E. G.,ROY, R. I. S., 2000. Davids vs Goliaths in the small satellite industry:
the role of technological innovation dynamics in firm competitiveness. Technovation,
Volume 20, pp. 287-297.
CENTRE NATIONAL DETUDES SPATIALES (CNES), 2005. Spacecraft Techniques and
Technology. Volume 3. France: CNES.
CHEN, W., ET AL. Software Defined Radio (SDR) Payloads for Microsatellite Missions. 15th CASI
Astronautics Conference, May 4-6 Toronto, Onario, Canada. pp. 1-6.
CHRISTENSEN, I., VACCARO, D., KAISER, D., 2010. MARKET
CHARACTERIZATION: LAUNCH OF VERY-SMALL AND NANO SIZED
PAYLOADS. IAC-10.E6.3.9, Futron, Bethesda, MD 20814. Available from:
<http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Market_Characteriza
tion_Launch_of_Very_Small_Nano_Sized_0910.pdf>. [Accessed Date 30 August 2011].
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION (2006) Second Quarter 2006 Quarterly Launch
Report. Federal Aviation Administration. Report number: 2Q2006.
CONNOLLY, J., 2011. Space Mission Design. Graz/International Space University. 4 Aug, 2011.
Netherlands: Delft/Delft University of Technology. .
COURTNEY, D., 2011. Ionic Liquid Ion Source Emitter Arrays Fabricated on Bulk Porous Substrates for
Spacecraft Propulsion. Thesis PhD. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

CSA, 2011. A BRITE New Constellation. Canada, CSA. Available from: <http://www.asc-
csa.gc.ca/eng/default.asp>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
CUBESAT, 2009. CubeSat in the News. Available from: <http://www.cubesat.org/>. [Accessed
Date 2 September 2011].
CUBESAT, 2011. CubeSat shop. Available from: <http://www.cubesatshop.com/>. [Accessed
DEEMS, E., 2007. Risk Management of Student-Run Small Satellite Programs. Thesis (MSc).
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available from:
<http://ssl.mit.edu/publications/theses/SM-2007-DeemsElizabeth.pdf>. [Accessed Date
1 September 2011].
DEPASQUALE, D., CHARANIA, A.C., KANAYAMA, H., AND MATSUDA, S. Analysis of
the Earth-to-Orbit Launch Market for Nano and Microsatellites. Analysis of the Earth-to-Orbit
Launch Market for Nano and Microsatellites, 30 August 2 September 2010 Anaheim, CA.
Anaheim, CA: AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics),.
DIEDERICKS-VERSCHOOR I.H.PH. AND KOPAL V., 2008. An Introduction to Space Law.
3rd Ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
DMC INTERNATIONAL IMAGING LTD. DMC Constellation. Available from:
<http://www.dmcii.com/about?us?constellation.htm>. [Accessed Date 29 August 2011].
EHRENFREUD, P., ET AL, 2011. The O/OREOS Mission - Astrobiology Data Collected in Low
Earth Orbit. 42nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 7 March 2011 Woodlands,
Texas. pp. 1918.
EPFL, 2009. Swisscube - The First Satellite. Available from: <http://swisscube.epfl.ch/>.
ERIKSEN, T., SKAUEN, A.N., NARHEIM, B., HELLEREN, , OLSEN, ., OLSEN, R.B.,
2010. Tracking Ship Traffic with Space-Based AIS: Experience Gained in First Months of
Operations. Norway, IEEE. Available from:
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=05730241>. [Accessed Date 31
August 2011].
ESTONIAN SPACE OFFICE, 2011. Development Plan for Estonian Space Affairs 2011-2015,
Space Applications Innovation Strategy for Development of High Technological Services.
Tallinn, Estonia: Enterprise Estonia.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2011. Europe 2020. Brussels (Belgium), European Commission.
Available from: <http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm>. [Accessed Date 31
August 2011].
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2011. European Space Policy. Brussels (Belgium), European
Commission. Available from:
<http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/esp/index_en.htm>. [Accessed Date 31
August 2011].
EUROPEAN COOPERATION ON SPACE STANDARIZATION (ECSS), 2011. ECSS
homepage. Available from: <http://www.ecss.nl>. [Accessed Date 22 August 2011].

EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY (ESA) - ESTRACK, 2011. ESTRACK tracking stations.

Available from: <http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Operations/SEM8YCSMTWE_0.html>.
[Accessed Date 22 Aug 2011].
EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY (ESA), 2011. News Estonia signs cooperation agreement
with ESA. Pais, ESA website. Available from:
<http://www.esa.int/esaMI/About_ESA/SEMMA09OY2F_0.html>. [Accessed Date 31
August 2011].
FLORIAN, G., 2011. SwissCube Track in real time. Available from: <http://swisscube-
live.ch/>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
FOUST, J. Emerging opportunities for low-cost small satellites in civil and commercial space. 24th Annual
AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, 10 August 2010 Logan, Utah.
GARBER, S., 2007. Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age. Available from:
<http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/> . [Accessed Date 30 August 2001].
GENSO, 2011. Available from: <www.genso.org>. [Accessed Date 22 August 2011].
GHADAKI, F., 2011. Space Marketing. ISDC 2011, Huntsville, Alabama, USA. Available from:
<http://www.slideshare.net/fghadaki/space-marketing-isdc2011>. [Accessed Date 31
August 2011].
GOLDIE, L.F.E., 1965. Liability for damage and the progressive development of international
Law. International Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 14, pp. 1189-1264.
GREEN, J., 2011. The Space Environment. Graz (Austria) / International Space University.
GROSWALD, L., WAN, S., WOELLERT, K., 2010. Cubesat Program Assessment. IAFF
Convention, August 2010 San Diego, CA.
GUNTER, D. K., 2011. GUNTERS SPACE PAGE. Available from:
<http://space.skyrocket.de/>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
HAM RADIO DELUXE, 2011. Ham Radio Deluxe. Ham Radio Deluxe. Available from:
<http://www.ham-radio-deluxe.com/Home.aspx>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
HARDHIENATA, S. Technical Aspects and Attitude Control Strategy of LAPAN-TUBSAT Micro
Satellite. Proceedings of the 5th IAA Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation,
4 - 8 April Berlin, Germany. pp. [Online] Available from
<http://www.dlr.de/Portaldata/49/Resources/dokumente/archiv5/0302_Hardhienata.pd
f> [Accessed on 28. August, 2011].
HUMSAT CONSTELLATION (HUMSAT), 2011. HumSAT - Humanitary Satellite Network
Project. Spain, University of Vigo, Spain. Available from: <http://www.humsat.org>.
HURWITZ, B., 1992. State Liability for Outer Space Activities in Accordance with the 1972 Convention
on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. Dordrecht/Boston/London:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
ICNSC-TUGRAZ, 2011. TUGSAT-1 (BRITE-Austria). Graz, Austria, ICNSC-TUGRAZ.
Available from: <http://www.iks.tugraz.at/forschung/forschungsprojekte/tugsat1>.

INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION (ISRO), 2008. ISRO Satellite Centre.

Available from: <http://isro.org/isrocentres/isac.aspx>. [Accessed Date 31 August 2011].
INTER-AGENCY SPACE DEBRIS COORDINATION COMMITTEE (IADC) (2007)
IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines. Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination
Committee (IADC). Report number: IADC-02-01.
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION, 2011. International
Telecommunication Union. Available from: <http://www.itu.int/> . [Accessed Date 2
September 2011].
JABLONSKI, A., SCOTT, R., 2009. Deorbiting of Low Earth Orbit Microsatellites. Canadian
Aeronautics and Space Journal, Volume.
JENKS, W.X., 1966. Liability for ultra-hazardous activities in international law. Recueil des Cours
de l Academie de Droit Internationale, Volume 117 (1), pp. 99-200.
JORDAN, F., 2006. Electrical Power System (EPS). Report of Diploma: Phase B. Ecole
Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne. Available from: <http://ctsgepc7.epfl.ch/03%20-
%20Power%20system/S3-B-EPS-1-1-Electrical_Power_System.pdf>. [Accessed Date 14
August 2011].
KELSO, T.S. 2007. Documentation. Celestrack. Available from:
<http://celestrack.com/NORAD/documentation/>. [Accessed Date 25 Aug 2011].
KRAMER, H. J., CRACKNELL, A. P., 2008. International Journal of Remote Sensing, Volume
29:15, pp. 4285-4337.
KRINGEN, B. (2004) Nordic Space Activities 1/2004. Nordiac. Report number: ISSN: 0805-7397.
KUFONIYI, O., AKINYEDE, J. O., 2004. Mainstreaming Geospatial Information for Sustainable
National Development in Nigeria. The XXI Conference of the International Society of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS), 12-23 July 2004 Istanbul, Turkey. pp. 293-
298.
KWAS, A., SHREVE, G., YOZWIAK, A., 2011. Ground Systems for Small Sats: Simple, Fast,
Inexpensive but Effective. 15th Ground Systems Architecture Workshop. Available from:
<http://sunset.usc.edu/gsaw2011/s3/kwas.pdf>. [Accessed Date 22 Aug 2011].
LAPPAS, V., PRASSINOS, G., BAKER, A., MAGNUSS, R., 2006. Wireless Sensor Motes for
Small Satellite Applications. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Volume Vol. 48, No.
5, pp. 175-179.
LARSON, W.J., KIRKPATRICK, D., SELLERS, J.J., ET. AL., 2009. Applied Space Systems
Engineering. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
LEE, S., HUTPUTANASIN, A., TOORIAN, A., LAN, W., MUNAKATA, R., 2009. CubeSat
Design Specification. The CubeSat Program. CubeSat Design Specification Rev. 12.
California Polytechnic State University. Available from: <http://www.cubesat.org/>.
[Accessed Date 14 August 2011].
LEE, S., TOORIAN, A., CLEMENS, N., PUIG-SUARI, J., 2004. Cal Poly Coordination of
Multiple Cubesats on the DNEPR Launch Vehicle. Available from:
<http://www.cubesat.org/images/More_Papers/ssc04-ix-7.pdf>. [Accessed Date 28
August 2011].

LESHNER, R. Satellite Communications and the Pacific Rim. Available from:

<http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/spacemil9.html>. [Accessed Date 22 August
2011].
LEVRINI, G., ATTEMA., E (2001) The Commissioning Phase and the Calibration/Validation
Activities. European Space Agency. Report number: bulletin 106.
LEY W., WITTMANN K. AND HALLMANN W., 2008. Handbuch des Raumfahrttechnik. : Carl
Hanser Verlag Muenchen.
LOGSDON, J.M. 2011. The International Dimensions of Space Exploration. SSP 11, Graz, Austria. 19
July 2011.
LYALL, F., LARSEN, P.B., 2009. Space Law: A Treatise. Surrey: Ashgate.
LYKE, J., FRONTERHOUS, D., CANNON, S., LANZA, D., WHEATON, T. Space Plug-and-
Play Avionics. 3rd Responsive Space Conference, April 25-28, 2005 Los Angeles, CA.
Reston, VA 20191-4344: AIAA, pp. 1-2.
MARSH, 2011. Space and Satellite Insurance. London, UK, Marsh & Mclennan companies.
Available from:
<http://uk.marsh.com/ProductsampServices/MarshSolutions/ID/4671/Space-and-
satellite-insurance.aspx>. [Accessed Date 28 August 2011].
MARSHALL, W. 2011. PhoneSat: can we turn a phone in to a satellite. Graz (Austria) / Space Studies
Program (ISU). 25 July 2011.
MCNUTT, C.J., VICK, R., WHITING, H., LYKE, J. (2009) Modular Nanosatellites - Plug and Play
(PnP) Cubesat. AIAA. Report number: AIAA-RS7-2009-4003.
MILES, R., SNOW, C., 2003. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Stanford Business
Classics.
MILSOM, E, 2008. The sky is no limit: Norwegian satellites show the way. Nortrade, Nortrade.
Available from: <http://www.nortrade.com/index?cmd=show_article&id=295>
MOISEEV, I., 2011. Legal regulation of space activities in Russia. Moscow, Institute of Space
Policy. Available from: <http://alt-isp.narod.ru/isp_Ru_public_zakon.htm>. [Accessed
MORRIS, T., FORGET, M., MALARDIER-JUGROOT, C., JUGROOT, M., 2011. Multi-Scale
Investigation of a Colloid Micro-Propulsion System. Journal of Plasma Processes and Polymers,
WILEY-VCH Verlag, Volume 8, 6, pp. 478489, DOI:10.1002/ppap.201100003.
MORTON, N., MOSTERT, S. African Satellite Constellation for Transnational Resource Management:
Towards Disaster Prevention. United Nations Regional Workshop on the Use of Space
Technology for Disaster Management for Africa, 1 - 5 July Addis Abada, Ethiopia. pp. 1 -
9. [Online] Available from
<http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/sap/2002/ethiopia/presentations/11speaker13.pdf
> [Accessed 24 August 2011].
MUELLER, J., HOFER, R., ZIEMER, J. Survey of Propulsion Technologies Applicable to CubeSats.
57th JANNAF Propulsion Meeting.

MNCHEBERG, S., KRISCHKE, M., LEMKE, N., 1996. Nanosatellites and Micro Systems
Technology Capabilities, Limitations and Applications. Acta Astronautica, Volume 39, pp.
799-808.
MUYLAERT, J. VON KARMAN INSTITUTE (VKI), 2009. An international network of 50
CubeSats for multi-point, in-situ measurements in the lower thermosphere and for re-entry research. ESA
Atmospheric Science Conference, 7-11 September 2009 Barcelona (Spain). Barcelona
(Spain).: World Trade Center Barcelona,.
N2YO.COM, 2011. REAL TIME SATELLITE TRACKING. N2YO.com. Available from:
<http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=37790>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
NARHEIM, B.T., OLSEN, R., 2011. AISSat-1. FFI. Available from:
<http://www.ffi.no/no/Publikasjoner/Documents/AISSAT-
1_Norways%20first%20observation%20satellite.pdf>. [Accessed Date 30 August 2011].
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND SPACE. 2010. Indonesias Equatorial
Orbit Twin Satellites for Space-based Safety Application in the Disaster Mitigation and
Relief Effort. 16th Session of Asia Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum, Bangkok,
Thailand. 26 - 29 January 2010.
NORSK ROMSETER - NORWEGIAN SPACE CENTRE (NSC), 2003. First Norwegian
satellite launched. Oslo, Norway, Nowegian Space centre. Available from:
<http://www.spacecentre.no/English/Areas_of_Focus/First+Norwegian+Satellite+Laun
ched.d25-SMdfSWM.ips>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
OBIECHINA O., 2003. NigeriaSat-1 : The full story. Apco and Associate Ltd: ISBN 978-2368-79-
3; pp. 15-16.
ORBITRON, 2011. Orbitron. Poland. Available from: <http://www.stoff.pl>. [Accessed Date
1 September 2011].
ORR, N.G., EYER, J.K., B.P., LAROUCHE, ZEE R. E. Precision Formation Flight. The CanX-4
and CanX-5 Dual Nanosatellite Mission. 21st Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small
Satellites, 14 August 2007.
OZALP, T., 2009. Space as a strategic vision for Turkey and its people. Space Policy, Volume Vol.
25, pp. 224-235.
PAFETT, J., ROONEY, E., UNWIN, M., OWEN, J. A Dedicated Small Satellite Approach to
GNSS and SBAS,. Proceedings of the 16th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite
Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GPS/GNSS 2003), 2003 Portland, OR. pp.
1271-1278.
PARTRIDGE, C., 2002. What is a customer?. Available from:
<http://www.boroprogram.org/boro_program/pdfs_trap/O-02-BS.pdf> . [Accessed
PERL, E., DO, T., PETERSON, A., WELCH, J. 2005. Environmental Testing for Launch and
Space Vehicles Crosslink. Available from:
<http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/pdfs/V6N3.pdf>. [Accessed Date 22
August 2011].
PIKE, J., 2011. Global Security. org - Reliable Security Information. Available from:
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].

PIMPRIKAR, M.. 2011. CANEUS - Shared Small Satellites. Austria, Graz, International Space
University SSP 11. 25 July 2011.
PORTREE, D. S. F., LOFTUS, J. P. (1999). Orbital Debris: A Chronology. NASA Report
NASA/TP-1999-208856. Johnson Space Center, Houston.
PRANAJAYA, F.M., ZEE, R.E., CAIN, J., KOLACZ, R. Nanosatellite Tracking Ships: Responsive,
Seven-Month Nanosatellite Construction for a Rapid On-Orbit Automatic Identification System
Experiment.. AIAA 7th Responsive Space Conference. 27 - 30 April 2009 Los Angeles,
California, USA.
ROCKBERGER, D. (2009) Thermal and Mechanical Optimisation of The First Israeli Nano-Satellite.
Israel Nano-Satellite Association (INSA). Report number: N/A.
ROMANO, P., 31 August 2011. Personal Communication..
RUSSIAN INSURANCE CENTER, Rules against Space Risk, 1998.
SADEH, E., 2002. Space Politics and Policy - An Evolutionary Perspective. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer
academic publishers.
SADIN, R. S., DAVIS, R. W., 1994. The Smallsat Revolution Back to the Future?. Acta
Astronautica, Volume Vol. 34, pp. 109-122.
SALLABERGER, C., 2011. Management of Space Projects. Austria, Graz, International Space
University SSP 11. 19 July 2011.
SANDAU, R., BRIESS, K., DERRICO, M., 2010. Small satellites for global coverage: Potential
and limits. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Volume 65, pp. 492-504.
SATPC32, 2011. SatPC32. Available from: <http://dk1tb.de/indexeng.htm>. [Accessed Date
28 August 2011].
SCHROGL, K.U., 2008. The European Space Policy Still in need of a regulatory framework
for European space activities. The Aviation & Maritime Journal, Volume ANNO VII - n. 4,.
SCHUCH, N.J., 2010. Small satellites current situation for access to space orbits. In:DURAO, O.S.C.,
COSTA, L.L., STEKEL, T.R.C.Small Satellite Missions Symposium, International
Astronautical Congres. 29 September 2010. Prague, Czech Republic, IAC-10.B4.5.7.
SCHWARZENBERG-CZERNY, A., 2010. The Brite Nano-Satellite Constellation Mission. 38th
COSPAR Scientific Assembly. 15-18 July 2010 Bremen, Germany. pp. 15.
SEGERT, T., 2011. Successful Capacity Building in Small Satellites. Austria, Graz, International Space
University SSP 11. 22 August 2011.
SPACE BLOG, 2011. The road to commissioning NigeriaSat-2 in Abuja. Available from:
<http://blog.sstl.co.uk/archives/381-The-road-to-commissioning-NigeriaSat-2-in-
Abuja.html>. [Accessed Date 31 August 2011].
SPACE RESEARCH CENTER OF POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (SRC PAS) (2010)
Press information of the Space Research Centre of Polish Academy of Science (SRC PAS). SRC PAS.

SPACE RESEARCH CENTER OF POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (SRC PAS), 2010.

Press information of the Space Research Centre of Polish Academy of Science (SRC PAS)
Infrastruktura. Warsaw. SRC PAS. Available from:
<http://www.cbk.waw.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116&Itemi
d=128&lang=pl>. [Accessed Date 2 September 2011].
SPACE RESEARCH CENTRE OF POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (SRC PAS),
NICOLAUS COPERNICUS ASTRONOMICAL CENTRE (NCAC), 2011. The first
polish scientific satellite BRITE PL. SRC PAS and NCAC. Available from:
<http://www.brite-pl.pl>. [Accessed Date 2 September 2011].
SPACE SECURITY, 2011. Executive Summary. Available from:
<http://www.spacesecurity.org/executive.summary.2011.pdf>. [Accessed Date 22 August
2011].
SpaceX, 2011. SpaceX Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Available from:
<http://www.spacex.com/>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
SPOT, 2006. In-orbit commissioning - SPOT 4 - CNES. Available from:
<http://spot4.cnes.fr/spot4_gb/recette.htm>. [Accessed Date 22 August 2011].
STEYN, W. H., HASHIDA, Y., 1999. In-orbit Attitude and Orbit Control Commissioning of
UoSAT-12. Spacecraft Guidance, Navigation and Control Systems, Proceedings of the 4th ESA
International Conference,held 18-21 October, 1999 in ESTEC, Noordwijk, the Netherlands. Edited by
B. Schrmann, Volume ESA SP-425., pp. 95.
STONE, J.J., 2010. NASA Launches Google Phones Into Space as Cheap Satellites.
Treehugger.com. Available from: <http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/nasa-
launches-google-phones-into-space-as-cheap-satellites.php>. [Accessed Date 3 September
2011].
STUDSAT, 2010. Project Management. Available from:
<http://www.teamstudsat.com/collegeconsortium.html>. [Accessed Date 31 August
2011].
SUN, W. Space Education and National Capacity Building through Collaboration on Small Satellite
Missions,. 15th UN/IAF Workshop on Space Education and Capacity Building for
Sustainable Development. 14-15 October 2005 Kitakyushu, Japan.
SUN, W., STEPHENS, J.P., SWEETING, M. Micro-Mini-Satellites for Affordable EOConstellations:
Rapid-Eye & DMC. 6th IAA, 3 April 2001. : Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd,.
SURREY SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED (SSTL), 2011. Small Satellites - Earth
Observation Surrey Satellite Technology LTD. SSTL. Available from:
<http://www.sstl.co.uk/>. [Accessed Date 2 September 2011].
SUSAN, J., ALEX, S.C., DOUG, L., FRANCIS, C., UGUR, M.L., MUSTAFA, H.,
MOHAMMED, B., DJOUAD, B., LEE, B., LUIS G., MARTIN, S., 2010. Capacity
building in emerging space nations: Experiences, challenges and benefits. Advance in Space
Research, Volume 46, pp. 571-581.
THE RADIO AMATEUR SATELLITE CORPORATION (AMSAT), 2011. The Radio
Amateur Satellite Corporation. Silver Spring, MD 20910. Available from:
<http://www.amsat.org/>. [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].

THYAGARAJAN, K., GUPTA, J. P., GOEL, P. S., JAYARAMAN, K., 2005. University small
satellite program--ANUSAT. Acta Astronautica, Volume Volume 56, Issues 1- 2, 4th IAA
International Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation, pp. 89 97.
TIMOFEEV, A. (2009) Space insurance market. International Space University. Report number:
N/A.
TU DELFT. Risk analysis. TU Delft, TU Delft. Available from: <http://lr.tudelft.nl/>.
TUGRAZ, 2011. Graz University of Technology - The TUGSAT-1/BRITE-Austria Project-
Mission. Available from: <http://www.tugsat.tugraz.at/project/mission>. [Accessed Date
1 September 2011].
UNISPACE III (1998) Small Satellite Missions. UNOOSA. Report number: A/CONF.184/BP/9.
UNITED NATIONS (2010) Report on the second United Nations/Austria/EuropeanSpace Agency
Symposium on Small Satellite Programmes for Sustainable Development: Payloads for Small, Satellite
Programmes. Report number: A/AC.105/983.
UNITED NATIONS, 2002. United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space.
UNITED NATIONS, 2005. Disseminating and Developing International and National Space
Law: The Latin America and Caribbean Perspective. UNOOSA. Available from:
<http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/publications/st_space_28E.pdf> . [Accessed Date
22 August 2011].
UNITED NATIONS, 2007. Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space. United Nations General Assembly, Official Records of the Sixty-second
session. (A/62/20, Annex), New York.
UNITED NATIONS, 2009. International Charter Space and Major Disasters. UNOOSA, UN-
SPIDER Available from: <http://www.un-spider.org/guide-en/4855/international-
charter-space-and-major-disasters> [Accessed Date 1 September 2011].
UNITED NATIONS, 2010. Report on the United Nations/Turkey/European Space Agency Workshop
on Space Technology Applications for Socio-Economic Benefits. UNOOSA. Report number:
A/AC.105/986.
UNITED NATIONS, 2011. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly 1721 (XVI)
International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space. Available from:
<http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_16_1721.html>.
UNITED NATIONS, 2011. UNOOSA Documents Database. Available from:
<http://www.unoosa.org/oosaddb/browse_all_js.jsp?dims=COUNTRY_CODE|DATE
?lf=1090&lng=en>. [Accessed Date 27 August 2011].
UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART. Stuttgart Small Satellite Program. University of Stuttgart.
Available from: <http://www.irs.uni-
stuttgart.de/aktuelles/faltblaetter/Kleinsatelliten_Faltblatt_a4_englisch.pdf>. [Accessed
UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA, 2011. Nano-satellites for Astrophysics. Vienna, UNIVERSITY
OF VIENNA. Available from: <http://www.univie.ac.at/brite-
constellation/html/orbit_and_launcher.html>. [Accessed Date 2 September 2011].

UNTERBERGER, M., 30/8/2011. Personal Communication.

VILLAIN, R. 2011. A long term view of the smallsat market. Center for High Defence Studies,
Rome. 5-6 May 2011.
VON KARMAN INSTITUTE (VKI), 2011. Project Description. Belgium, von Karman Institute
for Fluid Dynamics. Available from: <https://www.qb50.eu/>. [Accessed Date 28 August
2011].
VROLIJK, A. (avrolijk@gmail.com), 31 August 2011. Re: Test. M. VIHMAND,
(mart.vihmand@eas.ee).
WERTZ, J. R., LARSON, W.J., 2008. Space Mission Analysis and Design. 3rd edition : Space
Technology Library.
WERTZ, J.R, LARSON,W.J., 1996. Space Mission Cost. Space Technology Library. KS, USA
(Lansing): Microcosm Press.
WERTZ, J.R. AND LARSON, W.J., 1993. Space Mission Analysis and Design. USA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
WICKRAMATUNGA, R., 1991. Review and Analysis of the Register of Space Objects. Space
policy, Volume 7, pp. 72.
WIEST, J.D., LEVY, F.K., 1977. A Management Guide to PERT/CPM: with GERT/PDM/DCPM
and other networks. 2nd. USA: Prentice Hall.
WOLSKI, M., 2010. Polska strategia rozwoju technologii kosmicznych? (Translation: Polish
space policy in the space technology development?). Available from:
<http://www.kosmonauta.net/index.php/Przyszlosc/Polska/polska-strategia.html>.
XUE Y., LI Y., GUANG J., ZHANG X., GUO J., 2008. Small satellite remote sensing and
applications history, current and future. International Journal of Remote Sensing, Volume
29:15, pp. 4339-4372.
YUSOF, NORHAN MAT., RazakSAT Technology Advent in High Resolution Imaging System for
Small Satellite. Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, 2005. pp. 5.


ISU SSP11 GoSSP Report Full Light

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ISU SSP11 GoSSP Report Full Light

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Mission Phases

Alonsoperez, Maria Victoria Pandya, Jigar

International Space University

International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

Simone La Torre & Manuela Unterberger

International Space University

Tel. +33 (0)3 88 65 54 32

ii International Space University, SSP 2011

TP Co-Chair Werner Balogh

External Experts and International Space University Faculty and Staff

Fernando Aguado-Agelet University of Vigo

International Space University, SSP 2011 iii

iv International Space University, SSP 2011

International Space University, SSP 2011 v

Non est ad astra mollis e terris via.

Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria, Summer 2011

Werner Balogh Wiley Larson Joshua Nelson

vi International Space University, SSP 2011

"Good things come in small packages."

Go SSP TEAM SSP11, Graz University of Technology, Austria.

International Space University, SSP 2011 vii

3.1 TECHNOLOGY TRENDS .......................................................................................................................13

viii International Space University, SSP 2011

6 POLICY AND PROGRAM CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT................................................ 33

International Space University, SSP 2011 ix

7.4.1 Manufacturing and System-Level Tests.................................................................................................62

x International Space University, SSP 2011

Figure 6-1: Various elements affected by small satellite programs ..................................................33

International Space University, SSP 2011 xi

Table 1-1: Program strategy development considerations ...................................................................3

xii International Space University, SSP 2011

International Space University, SSP 2011 xiii

GMAT General Mission Analysis Tool

xiv International Space University, SSP 2011

International Space University, SSP 2011 xv

This guidebook has a companion website at the following address:

The website contains:

xvi International Space University, SSP 2011

Eventually, and in parallel with governmental space activities, a group of non-governmental

International Space University, SSP 2011 1

Whether the reader is a representative of an academic institution with a limited budget or a

2 International Space University, SSP 2011

Table 1-1: Program strategy development considerations

1.3 How to use this Guidebook

International Space University, SSP 2011 3

Table 1-2: Considerations for program and mission development

4 International Space University, SSP 2011

2 RATIONALES AND BENEFITS

There is an increasing number of academic, industrial, government, and Non-Profit

Additionally, motivations for scientific and technological advancements are often

International Space University, SSP 2011 5

6 International Space University, SSP 2011

Another example of an NPO is AMSAT, an organization of amateur radio satellite enthusiasts.

2.2 Benefits of Small Satellite Programs

Table 2-2: Typical benefits of small satellite programs

International Space University, SSP 2011 7

Government organizations may establish a small satellite program as a means of capability

8 International Space University, SSP 2011

2.3 Examples of Small Satellite Missions: Rationales

International Space University, SSP 2011 9

Table 2-3: Rationales for example missions

10 International Space University, SSP 2011

International Space University, SSP 2011 11

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.